Here's a hypothetical for you related to the below post.
If there was a way last year to ensure that the abuses of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Egyptian Renditions, and all the other American abuses would stop, but that it also would have ensured Bush's re-election last year; would you have supported that at the time? And just to make things worse, that it would have ensured a real landslide; like a 60%-40% victory for the big guy. Would you have supported such a policy, assuming you were the sole decider on this?
I know, I know. Nobody likes hypotheticals like that. In this case, one of the reasons we opposed Bush is because we wanted to see that stuff stopped, and knew that Bush wouldn't stop it. And more so, we believed that holding Bush and his people accountable for such actions would help ensure that such abuses would be less likely to happen with future presidents. So one reason to oppose Bush's re-election was to stop the abuses.
But that's exactly what makes hypotheticals so much fun. Because the real world doesn't match up, and it makes it so we don't have to think about the difficult choices.
And just to clarify, for this hypothetical, we are assuming that Bush would do everything the same regarding all other matters. He'd still try to privatize Social Security, pass more tax cuts for the rich, etc. The only difference is that he would have stopped all torture and abuse, and also set the proper conditions to ensure that the torture and abuse would not have continued by rogue individuals. Essentially, his torture/abuse policy would be equal to or better than what we had imagined Kerry would have done as president. But that it would have been guaranteed under either President, rather than what we have now.
So, would you have agreed to that at the time? Which was more important: that Bush be kicked out of office, or that we guarantee that the torture and abuse stopped? I have no answer to that, and leave it for you to mull over.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Low-Level Hillbillies Gone Wild
Digby's wrong. I don't say it often, as I'm still hoping he'll put me on his Hullabaloo blogroll; but he's wrong nonetheless. About what? Torture. He has a very good post about the American acceptance of torture, which includes part of a must-read interview with a Guantanamo lawyer. But he makes one mistake. He thinks Republicans support torture. And while some nuts certainly do support it; the majority do not. And we should be working with them to stop it, rather than insisting that they're all nuts.
And it's not just Digby. Lots of libs think this way. But they're totally wrong. Entirely wrong. And it's for the reason I've been saying all along. Conservatives, or at least the new conservatives who have joined the movement and made it popular, do not disagree with us regarding our opinions. They disagree with the facts. And until we can internalize that fact and use it to our advantage, we will continue to be unable to communicate with them and bring them over to the light-side.
Pleasing Torture
Take torture, for example. Do conservatives support torture by Americans? Of course not. They will emphatically tell you that. And I'm sure they mean it too. Most of them, anyway. They don't support torture. Not low-grade torture. Not even torture by a different name. They just don't support torture.
So how do they justify Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Because they insist that that isn't torture. That, whatever is going on there, is just not a big deal. It's just "blowing off steam" and at the level of frat pranks. And Gitmo detainees? They're treated fairly, and better than they would be in their own country. And it's nice tropical weather. Why, a New Yorker would pay a lot of money for similar accommodations, we've been told.
And those are all certainly rationalizations. But they're not rationalizations justifying torture. They're rationalizations to show that it isn't torture. They aren't saying that it's ok to torture people; they're denying that torture is happening at all.
And why would they deny that it was torture? Because they don't approve of it. If they approved of it, they wouldn't need to justify it as "blowing off steam". They'd say, "Damn straight we were torturing the bastards. I'm just shocked that we weren't doing more." That's what they'd say. And a few do say that. But most don't. Even nutso Rush Limbaugh would never say that. And not because we'd disapprove; that'd just make him say it more. But because his listeners would disapprove. Folks like my innocent mom, who has listened to that jerk almost every day for over thirteen years. He'd do anything but offend nice people like her. And an explicit endorsement of torture would do the trick. She may be gullible, but she sure as hell as her standards. And torture is not within them. She just has to keep believing that torture isn't happening.
And even at that, remember: Rush never said it was a good to do these things. He just said it wasn't torture. But they still insist that it wasn't government policy. They still insist that these were just pranks by bored hillbillies trying to have fun. But they never, ever justify it as good government policy. They never claim that even these low-grade torture techniques were justified as means of extracting information.
And again, that's proof that they don't approve of it. Because they TELL us that they don't approve of it as government policy. They rationalize it as "frat pranks", but they still don't approve of them. Not even the low-grade stuff.
High-Grade Torture
And here's the thing: when we talk of torture, we know that there is more going on than the low-grade butt-pyramid stuff. We've read all about it. About the beatings. Rapes. Renditions to torturing countries. Who knows what else.
And sure, Rumsfeld didn't approve of rapes. But he wanted conditions that could allow them to happen. Not because he wanted rapes, but because he wanted everything else. And any conditions which would prevent all rapes would also prevent a lot of the other stuff he might want happening. And he'd rather have unauthorized rapes if it meant he could have good interrogations without having to specifically authorize torture (something he's far too cowardly to do). So they set conditions which would not prohibit the bad stuff from happening. Like by sending people to Egypt where they "say they're not going to torture the people." Of course, Mr. Bush. They just wanted to show them the Sphinx.
That's one of the big tricks of Republicans; you don't authorize anything illegal, but you create a culture in which underlings would take illegal acts upon themselves. That's how Watergate happened. And the Iran-Contra scandal. It wasn't because Nixon or Reagan told anyone to act illegally, but because they set conditions which could allow bad things to happen and indicated that they'd like it if certain problems were solved; so that they wouldn't have to specifically authorize the bad things they wanted happening. Like illegal wire-tapping. Or giving banned weapons to terrorists. It gives the plausible deniablity so preferable among our evil leaders. All the solutions, with none of the accountability.
So when we talk about that stuff, that's what we're including. But again, the Republicans won't even admit to approving the low-grade stuff as government policy. So they will completely deny that any of this other stuff is even happening. And they do deny it. All of it. They will claim that the source of the story is flawed or biased; and that we're just believing these falsehoods because we hate Bush and America so much. And denial is far from approval. Their opinion of torture is the same as ours, and they'd condemn it as quickly as they saw it; they just don't see it.
Why Torture
But the question is: Why? Why do they allow this to happen? Is it because of 9/11? Are they looking the other way because they fear another attack? Maybe. That's what we always say. But I'm really not so sure that it's true. Because frankly, none of these people act like people who are afraid of another attack. Shortly after 9/11 they may have. But not any longer. They've gotten back to their daily routines and invented problems. They don't act like they're scared of anything. They act like people who want excuses to behave inexcusably.
So, why support torture? It's politics. They're supporting their team. They're supporting Bush. This isn't about approving torture, or being scared into accepting it. This is about protecting Bush and protecting their team. They'd say anything to protect Bush. Because the object for them isn't truth; it's loyalty. Republicans honor loyalty much higher than truth. Because they already think they have the truth. They're just seeking the ability to implement that truth.
And of course it's politics. What did we expect from them "Geez, I guess Bush wasn't such a great guy after all. We owe you an apology. I'll buy you a drink and vote Democrat."?? Was that it? What reaction did we expect? If they blame Bush, the game's up. They lose. And so of course they had to fight against that. Of course they couldn't blame Bush. Not because they don't blame him. But because they knew we would. And if Bush went down, we'd send them down with him.
I've got tons more to write about the Watergate book I'm reading right now, and this concept of the rats clamoring together for safety played very heavily into that story too. But you'll just have to wait for that.
Bizarro Torture
And think about it from the other side. Honestly, if Clinton were president during this, would they still approve of torture? Even the low-grade stuff? Hell no they wouldn't. They'd attack the butt pyramids more than the beatings, insisting that it was Clinton's immoral blowjobs which encouraged the damn hillbillies to stack those men up like that. They'd blame his moral relativism; just like they blamed corporate greed on Clinton's immorality, like he invented it or something. They wouldn't accept this at all and would demand his impeachment. Hell, if they had had something this strong, they probably would have succeeded! Probably could have impeached Gore too! Given us a coup-de-Newt.
And they'd totally use it to attack us, as they'd know that we could never defend it. And we wouldn't try to. If anything, we'd claim that it was low-level hillbillies gone wild. Red-staters just teaching David Brooks a few more things about the red/blue distinctions, we'd say. But we'd insist that it wasn't Clinton's policy or fault, and that we didn't approve of it. And that's exactly what they're doing. They don't approve of this crap any more than we do. They're just trapped and scared. Their defense is their only defense.
Wrapping Up Torture
And why is this important: because conservatives know that they don't approve of torture. And so when we talk to them about it, it makes no sense. They just see us attacking a strawman. And we certainly are. And until we stop attacking the strawman and understand what the conservatives are really saying, we won't be able to get through to them in order to stop this stuff from happening. They're so busy protecting themselves from our attacks, that they can't see that we're on the same side.
And that's unfortunate. This stuff is too important for us to get our partisan jollies by razzing conservatives about liking torture. I know that's not what you people are trying to do, but can you explain why else you didn't see these obvious facts in front of you? Why you kept hearing Republican disavowal of torture and insisting that they approved of it? It makes no sense. You get your kicks out of this stuff, and it's not right. This is serious stuff. There are a handful of nuts out there who support torture, and we need to work with the disapproving conservatives to get that to stop. And they're not going to work with us if we keep blaming them for it; and using it to denounce their team.
I'm not saying that we ignore the torture. I'm saying that we should have been working to stop it, rather than trying to blame Bush and his followers for it. And had they allowed themselves to admit to the facts in front of them, they surely would never have re-elected Bush again. As I've said before, our disagreement isn't over what the facts mean, but over the facts themselves. We just need for them to want to see the facts. They're not stupid or mean. They're just blind. And we need to stop shining our lights in their eyes if we want Republicans to open them. I know they wouldn't do it for us, but that's why we need to do it for them. For America.
And it's not just Digby. Lots of libs think this way. But they're totally wrong. Entirely wrong. And it's for the reason I've been saying all along. Conservatives, or at least the new conservatives who have joined the movement and made it popular, do not disagree with us regarding our opinions. They disagree with the facts. And until we can internalize that fact and use it to our advantage, we will continue to be unable to communicate with them and bring them over to the light-side.
Pleasing Torture
Take torture, for example. Do conservatives support torture by Americans? Of course not. They will emphatically tell you that. And I'm sure they mean it too. Most of them, anyway. They don't support torture. Not low-grade torture. Not even torture by a different name. They just don't support torture.
So how do they justify Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Because they insist that that isn't torture. That, whatever is going on there, is just not a big deal. It's just "blowing off steam" and at the level of frat pranks. And Gitmo detainees? They're treated fairly, and better than they would be in their own country. And it's nice tropical weather. Why, a New Yorker would pay a lot of money for similar accommodations, we've been told.
And those are all certainly rationalizations. But they're not rationalizations justifying torture. They're rationalizations to show that it isn't torture. They aren't saying that it's ok to torture people; they're denying that torture is happening at all.
And why would they deny that it was torture? Because they don't approve of it. If they approved of it, they wouldn't need to justify it as "blowing off steam". They'd say, "Damn straight we were torturing the bastards. I'm just shocked that we weren't doing more." That's what they'd say. And a few do say that. But most don't. Even nutso Rush Limbaugh would never say that. And not because we'd disapprove; that'd just make him say it more. But because his listeners would disapprove. Folks like my innocent mom, who has listened to that jerk almost every day for over thirteen years. He'd do anything but offend nice people like her. And an explicit endorsement of torture would do the trick. She may be gullible, but she sure as hell as her standards. And torture is not within them. She just has to keep believing that torture isn't happening.
And even at that, remember: Rush never said it was a good to do these things. He just said it wasn't torture. But they still insist that it wasn't government policy. They still insist that these were just pranks by bored hillbillies trying to have fun. But they never, ever justify it as good government policy. They never claim that even these low-grade torture techniques were justified as means of extracting information.
And again, that's proof that they don't approve of it. Because they TELL us that they don't approve of it as government policy. They rationalize it as "frat pranks", but they still don't approve of them. Not even the low-grade stuff.
High-Grade Torture
And here's the thing: when we talk of torture, we know that there is more going on than the low-grade butt-pyramid stuff. We've read all about it. About the beatings. Rapes. Renditions to torturing countries. Who knows what else.
And sure, Rumsfeld didn't approve of rapes. But he wanted conditions that could allow them to happen. Not because he wanted rapes, but because he wanted everything else. And any conditions which would prevent all rapes would also prevent a lot of the other stuff he might want happening. And he'd rather have unauthorized rapes if it meant he could have good interrogations without having to specifically authorize torture (something he's far too cowardly to do). So they set conditions which would not prohibit the bad stuff from happening. Like by sending people to Egypt where they "say they're not going to torture the people." Of course, Mr. Bush. They just wanted to show them the Sphinx.
That's one of the big tricks of Republicans; you don't authorize anything illegal, but you create a culture in which underlings would take illegal acts upon themselves. That's how Watergate happened. And the Iran-Contra scandal. It wasn't because Nixon or Reagan told anyone to act illegally, but because they set conditions which could allow bad things to happen and indicated that they'd like it if certain problems were solved; so that they wouldn't have to specifically authorize the bad things they wanted happening. Like illegal wire-tapping. Or giving banned weapons to terrorists. It gives the plausible deniablity so preferable among our evil leaders. All the solutions, with none of the accountability.
So when we talk about that stuff, that's what we're including. But again, the Republicans won't even admit to approving the low-grade stuff as government policy. So they will completely deny that any of this other stuff is even happening. And they do deny it. All of it. They will claim that the source of the story is flawed or biased; and that we're just believing these falsehoods because we hate Bush and America so much. And denial is far from approval. Their opinion of torture is the same as ours, and they'd condemn it as quickly as they saw it; they just don't see it.
Why Torture
But the question is: Why? Why do they allow this to happen? Is it because of 9/11? Are they looking the other way because they fear another attack? Maybe. That's what we always say. But I'm really not so sure that it's true. Because frankly, none of these people act like people who are afraid of another attack. Shortly after 9/11 they may have. But not any longer. They've gotten back to their daily routines and invented problems. They don't act like they're scared of anything. They act like people who want excuses to behave inexcusably.
So, why support torture? It's politics. They're supporting their team. They're supporting Bush. This isn't about approving torture, or being scared into accepting it. This is about protecting Bush and protecting their team. They'd say anything to protect Bush. Because the object for them isn't truth; it's loyalty. Republicans honor loyalty much higher than truth. Because they already think they have the truth. They're just seeking the ability to implement that truth.
And of course it's politics. What did we expect from them "Geez, I guess Bush wasn't such a great guy after all. We owe you an apology. I'll buy you a drink and vote Democrat."?? Was that it? What reaction did we expect? If they blame Bush, the game's up. They lose. And so of course they had to fight against that. Of course they couldn't blame Bush. Not because they don't blame him. But because they knew we would. And if Bush went down, we'd send them down with him.
I've got tons more to write about the Watergate book I'm reading right now, and this concept of the rats clamoring together for safety played very heavily into that story too. But you'll just have to wait for that.
Bizarro Torture
And think about it from the other side. Honestly, if Clinton were president during this, would they still approve of torture? Even the low-grade stuff? Hell no they wouldn't. They'd attack the butt pyramids more than the beatings, insisting that it was Clinton's immoral blowjobs which encouraged the damn hillbillies to stack those men up like that. They'd blame his moral relativism; just like they blamed corporate greed on Clinton's immorality, like he invented it or something. They wouldn't accept this at all and would demand his impeachment. Hell, if they had had something this strong, they probably would have succeeded! Probably could have impeached Gore too! Given us a coup-de-Newt.
And they'd totally use it to attack us, as they'd know that we could never defend it. And we wouldn't try to. If anything, we'd claim that it was low-level hillbillies gone wild. Red-staters just teaching David Brooks a few more things about the red/blue distinctions, we'd say. But we'd insist that it wasn't Clinton's policy or fault, and that we didn't approve of it. And that's exactly what they're doing. They don't approve of this crap any more than we do. They're just trapped and scared. Their defense is their only defense.
Wrapping Up Torture
And why is this important: because conservatives know that they don't approve of torture. And so when we talk to them about it, it makes no sense. They just see us attacking a strawman. And we certainly are. And until we stop attacking the strawman and understand what the conservatives are really saying, we won't be able to get through to them in order to stop this stuff from happening. They're so busy protecting themselves from our attacks, that they can't see that we're on the same side.
And that's unfortunate. This stuff is too important for us to get our partisan jollies by razzing conservatives about liking torture. I know that's not what you people are trying to do, but can you explain why else you didn't see these obvious facts in front of you? Why you kept hearing Republican disavowal of torture and insisting that they approved of it? It makes no sense. You get your kicks out of this stuff, and it's not right. This is serious stuff. There are a handful of nuts out there who support torture, and we need to work with the disapproving conservatives to get that to stop. And they're not going to work with us if we keep blaming them for it; and using it to denounce their team.
I'm not saying that we ignore the torture. I'm saying that we should have been working to stop it, rather than trying to blame Bush and his followers for it. And had they allowed themselves to admit to the facts in front of them, they surely would never have re-elected Bush again. As I've said before, our disagreement isn't over what the facts mean, but over the facts themselves. We just need for them to want to see the facts. They're not stupid or mean. They're just blind. And we need to stop shining our lights in their eyes if we want Republicans to open them. I know they wouldn't do it for us, but that's why we need to do it for them. For America.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Bush: Bold As Love
I was just reading Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly quoting some Republican dude referring to Social Security reform and saying, "In this environment, I just can't see it. The Democrats are so negative. Even people who will normally look at things, are saying, 'No way on this one. We're blood brothers.'"
Who the hell are they kidding? This has nothing to do with the Democrats. Or next to nothing, anyway. The Republicans know better than we do that the Democrat's opposition has nothing to do with this. Hell, they want Democratic opposition to Bush's bills. They cherry-pick a handful of Dems through bribery, threats, and lies; and then pray that the rest of the party kicks and screams all the way until the bill is signed into law. That's how they convince the rubes that it's good policy; because the Democrats oppose it.
Sure, I'm glad that the Dems are doing it. And if they were onboard Bush's trainwreck, they'd surely deserve the blame as much as Bush does. Maybe more. But it's not the Democrat's fault that the train is derailing. Not at all. The reason Social Security reform is a no-go is because it's fucking unpopular. It's god damn unpopular. Not just with Dems, or just with those who lean-left; but with most red-blooded red-staters themselves. Gay marriage, that's a gimme. But Social Security is something real that these people use. And that's why Social Security reform will fail, despite the Democrat's opposition, not because of it.
And who couldn't see this coming from a mile away? I mean, Bush and the media like to pretend he's a bold leader, but who are they fooling? Nobody, really. Tax cuts and pre-emptive war may be dangerous and stupid policies, but they were surely always popular; particularly with Bush lovers. Bush supporting those issues is like Willy Wonka handing out licorice and lollipops at a Wiggles concert and pretending it makes him a bold leader. Except Willy Wonka has a bold and successful candy company; while Bush...
The only thing bold about this president is his bold penchant for bullshit. It's bold for him to pretend to be a ranching, straight-talking Texan who takes chances and goes against the wind; when he's really a two-faced halfwit who will say anything to empower his friends and stoke his own ego. And the only reason he can do that is because the media are unwitting accessories. But the idea that he is some tough-guy cowboy who pushed for his beliefs and supported unpopular, unpolled positions; that's a laugh. The reason they have to keep telling us that is because it's so completely untrue.
And so what do the Republicans do? They lash out at the Dems for blocking the unpopular plan. And why? So they can pretend that the Dems are in control of the government, and are to blame for gridlock and thwarting the President's agenda. Well the only thing thwarting the President's agenda IS the President's agenda. It's a horrible policy, and Bush and his goons deserve to go down in flames for trying to mess with the American people's will.
Moral: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but god dammit, leave their money alone.
And: Everyone loves a tax cut, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Who the hell are they kidding? This has nothing to do with the Democrats. Or next to nothing, anyway. The Republicans know better than we do that the Democrat's opposition has nothing to do with this. Hell, they want Democratic opposition to Bush's bills. They cherry-pick a handful of Dems through bribery, threats, and lies; and then pray that the rest of the party kicks and screams all the way until the bill is signed into law. That's how they convince the rubes that it's good policy; because the Democrats oppose it.
Sure, I'm glad that the Dems are doing it. And if they were onboard Bush's trainwreck, they'd surely deserve the blame as much as Bush does. Maybe more. But it's not the Democrat's fault that the train is derailing. Not at all. The reason Social Security reform is a no-go is because it's fucking unpopular. It's god damn unpopular. Not just with Dems, or just with those who lean-left; but with most red-blooded red-staters themselves. Gay marriage, that's a gimme. But Social Security is something real that these people use. And that's why Social Security reform will fail, despite the Democrat's opposition, not because of it.
And who couldn't see this coming from a mile away? I mean, Bush and the media like to pretend he's a bold leader, but who are they fooling? Nobody, really. Tax cuts and pre-emptive war may be dangerous and stupid policies, but they were surely always popular; particularly with Bush lovers. Bush supporting those issues is like Willy Wonka handing out licorice and lollipops at a Wiggles concert and pretending it makes him a bold leader. Except Willy Wonka has a bold and successful candy company; while Bush...
The only thing bold about this president is his bold penchant for bullshit. It's bold for him to pretend to be a ranching, straight-talking Texan who takes chances and goes against the wind; when he's really a two-faced halfwit who will say anything to empower his friends and stoke his own ego. And the only reason he can do that is because the media are unwitting accessories. But the idea that he is some tough-guy cowboy who pushed for his beliefs and supported unpopular, unpolled positions; that's a laugh. The reason they have to keep telling us that is because it's so completely untrue.
And so what do the Republicans do? They lash out at the Dems for blocking the unpopular plan. And why? So they can pretend that the Dems are in control of the government, and are to blame for gridlock and thwarting the President's agenda. Well the only thing thwarting the President's agenda IS the President's agenda. It's a horrible policy, and Bush and his goons deserve to go down in flames for trying to mess with the American people's will.
Moral: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but god dammit, leave their money alone.
And: Everyone loves a tax cut, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Media Affirmative Action and The Holy Grail
Ok, so maybe guest bloggers aren't all bad. Atrios is gone (again, without permission I'm sure), and he's got a few others to fill the void. And I surely would never have clicked on his others' blog, and thus would have missed this post from guesty Attaturk regarding allegations that Bush's latest terror victory is a complete sham based on misunderstanding and similar sounding names. And it's pretty bad.
And it reminded me of what is truly wrong with our media. First off, they're not trying to be such complete boobs. I can assure you of that. Were they trying to be so biased, they'd surely fail. And it's not that they're in the bag (not most of them, anyway).
The problem with our media is that they think like liberals, but they haven't got the brains to process information properly and believe so deeply in a subjective, relative world that they're constantly adrift and have no idea if the foundation they're using as their vantage point is solid or not. And more often than not, it is not a solid vantage point; but rather one of Rove's creations. But without a solid foundation for your ideas, you can't possibly know anything, and are helpless to those around you. And thus, our media.
The Liberal Media
And yes, you heard me right. I said they think like liberals. And they do. They don't necessarily push any liberal agenda. And they certainly like to smear Democrats more than Republicans, but that's not because they're Republicans but because they think like liberals.
And what I mean by that is that they're trying to be fair. They're trying to see both sides. Think of it like an affirmative action program to help idiotic conservatives sound less idiotic. They've been told that they've been biased against conservatives for a long time, so they're going out of their way to appear unbiased. But it's a hopeless and thankless task that can never be fulfilled because most conservatives see bias as anything that isn't coming from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
And part of the problem is that journalists DO consider themselves to be liberals. And that's why they rarely attack liberal ideas, but love to attack liberal or Democrat politicians and policies. Because policies are flawed and politicians are fallible; and neither can hold up to the imagined ideals of our liberal media (epitomized by the adulterous JFK).
In their minds, if they attack Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, it will satisfy the idealism they cherished when they were younger. And as such, it helps rationalize their otherwise Republican attitudes desiring tax cuts, war, and the revamping of Social Security. Thus, if they stay more ideologically pure than Dem politicians, it justifies their own ideologically impure thoughts.
And they actually feel guilty about being liberal, which is why they're trying to over-compensate in Bush's direction.
Desperately Seeking Success
And in this case, what we see is that the press wants to prove its fairness towards Bush. To prove that they're not so biased that they won't praise him. So they actively seek out ways to praise him. But the problem is that Bush is just such a complete fuck-up that he can't do anything right. He's got a galaxy-sized chip on his shoulder regarding his own inferiority, and so everything he touches becomes crap. Kind of like a reverse Midas.
And so the media keeps wanting to find ways of proving their nonpartisan status (an impossible feat by itself), and the Bush Admin keeps denying them any valid reasons to do so. But until they can finally satisfy that itch of Bush support, they'll never give up their hopeless quest to praise Bush.
Hell, it's almost as if Bush doesn't want to do anything right, out of fear that he'll satisfy their quest and will start telling the truth about him. Or is that just too much speculation?
Wrong Again
And so here we are again. Rather than doing the tiniest amount of research which could have easily uncovered the fact that this "number three Al-Queda" guy wasn't even on the FBI Most Wanted list; we have the media rushing out to repeat a story solely based upon what the Whitehouse told them.
And they now think that's their role: to take dictation and give Bush's side of the story. And if we wanted any research done on Bush's claim, we needed to do that ourselves; though they'd certainly attribute such work to "Bush's critics". Otherwise, they'll use this as just another opportunity to prove that they're not Bush-haters who reflexively hate Bush. And to prove to themselves that they're fair-minded liberals who are willing to listen to both sides...even if both sides are coming from the right.
And all because of our liberal media and their desire to make the idiotic and improbable sound fair-minded and sane. I believe Hitler used such tactics to his advantage too, though if you want to make any Bush-Hitler connections, you're on your own. Happy Mother's Day.
And it reminded me of what is truly wrong with our media. First off, they're not trying to be such complete boobs. I can assure you of that. Were they trying to be so biased, they'd surely fail. And it's not that they're in the bag (not most of them, anyway).
The problem with our media is that they think like liberals, but they haven't got the brains to process information properly and believe so deeply in a subjective, relative world that they're constantly adrift and have no idea if the foundation they're using as their vantage point is solid or not. And more often than not, it is not a solid vantage point; but rather one of Rove's creations. But without a solid foundation for your ideas, you can't possibly know anything, and are helpless to those around you. And thus, our media.
The Liberal Media
And yes, you heard me right. I said they think like liberals. And they do. They don't necessarily push any liberal agenda. And they certainly like to smear Democrats more than Republicans, but that's not because they're Republicans but because they think like liberals.
And what I mean by that is that they're trying to be fair. They're trying to see both sides. Think of it like an affirmative action program to help idiotic conservatives sound less idiotic. They've been told that they've been biased against conservatives for a long time, so they're going out of their way to appear unbiased. But it's a hopeless and thankless task that can never be fulfilled because most conservatives see bias as anything that isn't coming from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
And part of the problem is that journalists DO consider themselves to be liberals. And that's why they rarely attack liberal ideas, but love to attack liberal or Democrat politicians and policies. Because policies are flawed and politicians are fallible; and neither can hold up to the imagined ideals of our liberal media (epitomized by the adulterous JFK).
In their minds, if they attack Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, it will satisfy the idealism they cherished when they were younger. And as such, it helps rationalize their otherwise Republican attitudes desiring tax cuts, war, and the revamping of Social Security. Thus, if they stay more ideologically pure than Dem politicians, it justifies their own ideologically impure thoughts.
And they actually feel guilty about being liberal, which is why they're trying to over-compensate in Bush's direction.
Desperately Seeking Success
And in this case, what we see is that the press wants to prove its fairness towards Bush. To prove that they're not so biased that they won't praise him. So they actively seek out ways to praise him. But the problem is that Bush is just such a complete fuck-up that he can't do anything right. He's got a galaxy-sized chip on his shoulder regarding his own inferiority, and so everything he touches becomes crap. Kind of like a reverse Midas.
And so the media keeps wanting to find ways of proving their nonpartisan status (an impossible feat by itself), and the Bush Admin keeps denying them any valid reasons to do so. But until they can finally satisfy that itch of Bush support, they'll never give up their hopeless quest to praise Bush.
Hell, it's almost as if Bush doesn't want to do anything right, out of fear that he'll satisfy their quest and will start telling the truth about him. Or is that just too much speculation?
Wrong Again
And so here we are again. Rather than doing the tiniest amount of research which could have easily uncovered the fact that this "number three Al-Queda" guy wasn't even on the FBI Most Wanted list; we have the media rushing out to repeat a story solely based upon what the Whitehouse told them.
And they now think that's their role: to take dictation and give Bush's side of the story. And if we wanted any research done on Bush's claim, we needed to do that ourselves; though they'd certainly attribute such work to "Bush's critics". Otherwise, they'll use this as just another opportunity to prove that they're not Bush-haters who reflexively hate Bush. And to prove to themselves that they're fair-minded liberals who are willing to listen to both sides...even if both sides are coming from the right.
And all because of our liberal media and their desire to make the idiotic and improbable sound fair-minded and sane. I believe Hitler used such tactics to his advantage too, though if you want to make any Bush-Hitler connections, you're on your own. Happy Mother's Day.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Enron, The Media, and Ethics
My god, they can't be serious. I'm sure you already read this from the god-like Daily Howler regarding this absurdist post from The American Prospect's blog. They cite a new study of journalists which suggests that they're more ethical than we thought. Using a variant of an ethical dilemma test developed in the 70's, two researchers interviewed 249 journalists over two years. And what did they find? According to The American Prospect, they found that journalists are very ethical; and that it's kind of case-closed kind of thing that most anti-MSM bloggers (such as myself) will be too "blindered" to link to. Is this person really so dense?
The problem with behaving ethically only BEGINS with understanding what ethical behavior is. But it is well known that people will betray their ethics when faced with real world situations. It's just a fact. They're not trying to, they just don't realize when they're facing an ethical dilemma.
If you give someone a hypothetical situation, they will often know exactly how they should act. But if that same situation actually applies to them, they might behave differently. In fact, you can give someone a hypothetical situation which applies directly to something they've done, but in which they were not behaving ethically; and they'll likely give you the ethical answer. But if you told them that it applied to them, they'll then give you their rationalizations. That's just human nature.
Understanding ethics is the beginning, not the end of ethical behavior.
CPA Ethics
Take Enron, for example. I can assure you that, in theory, each and every CPA involved with that mess knew exactly what they should do. They stress and test this stuff in college, and then force you to take ethics classes as part of your continuing education.
And they don't focus on lofty ethics that some philosophy professor might spew out, regarding Plato or a perfect world. No. These are reality-based, specific instructions on what is proper and improper. As specific as reasonably possible. If X happens, you should do Y or Z, kind of stuff. There are whole sections on how to ensure the appearance of auditor independence, what to do with unethical corporate officers or employees, and even specifics on how to identify your CPA firm so as to not mislead people.
And each CPA involved, from Enron's employees to a whole host of Andersen's auditors, had to pass these classes and had clearly read this stuff. And if you tested them each day that they did these unethical things, they would all likely pass. I have no doubts about that. They're not hard tests, but you do have to understand the subject.
Boiling Frogs
But in practice, even those specific instructions were worthless. And the problem is that corruption had permeated all levels of their corporate environment. They all had a really bad attitude about this stuff, and it's infectious. Especially the auditors. Auditors are supposed to be polite, but not friendly with their clients. Andersen was outright pimping for Enron and seeking ways to subvert the rules they were supposed to be enforcing. But Enron had a corrupt culture and that infiltrated everything.
And I'll tell you right now, that's one of the damn things they warn you about! They teach you to watch-out for corrupt corporate cultures; and how you should document a bad corporate culture, which might even be reason enough to dismiss the client. And at the least, you should design your audit tests more strictly in order to be able to find more wrong-doings. That's just standard procedure and every single CPA knew that stuff; to the point that they were held professionally-liable for them and were punished. These aren't hypothetical ethics, but actionable ones.
But in practice, everything's different. It's kind of like the frog in boiling water thing. You put a frog in boiling water and he'll hop out; but if you put him in regular water, he won't notice when you turn up the heat and will eventually boil to death (or so they say). And that's exactly what happened to the auditors and employees of Enron. They knew this stuff was wrong, and they did it anyway because they just hadn't noticed. They just hadn't realized they were faced with an ethical dilemma until after they got busted.
No Excuse
And just so you know, from a CPA's perspective, there is no excuse for what happened at Enron or Andersen. No excuse. The media may have bought into the "sleeping watchdog" theory that it was sloppiness on Enron's part, but I can assure you that sloppiness is absolutely no excuse in auditing. There are very specific procedures on that, and sloppiness and "falling asleep at the switch" are punishable offenses. That's what the auditor is there for.
So these CPA's knew better. They could pass their professional ethics tests. And yet we got Enron all the same. It wasn't because they were unethical, and if Ken Lay had told them "hey, let's do something unethical" they probably would have rejected it and been offended. But it wasn't like that.
They had just gotten used to a certain culture, and they were completely unaware that they had long passed the line into unethical behavior. They knew they were kind of cheating, but they saw it more as a bending of the rules. And accounting certainly does have a slight level of bending involved, as it's not always easy to intrepret every rule into realworld applications. Especially with Enron and their complicated business deals. But, unfortunately for them and us, they had not just bent the rules, but broken them completely.
Ethical Journalists Gone Wild
And tying this back into our journalist ethics, we see the exact situation. This isn't a situation of unethical journalists who don't know how to behave ethically. Nor is it a case of journalists openly flouting ethical standards they know they should follow. Rather, we have smart people who know how to behave in theory, but are trapped into a corporate culture which denies them the ability to apply their ethical understanding. As with everything else, journalism has it's own little short-cuts and ways of bending the rules. And once you start going down the path of short-cuts, you often lose sight of the ethical situations you might be by-passing.
Beyond that, my main problem with journalists isn't their ethical lapses, per se. I mean, is it unethical to unintentionally give an unbalanced viewpoint in a news story? Or is it unethical to reprint unverified statements, as long as you don't verify either side's statements? More importantly, what if it involves glossing over something bad that Bush did? Is that unethical? How can they tell? Everything's subjective to these people because they see fact-checking and objective verification as being partisan. Both sides are going to complain about whatever you do, or so they believe, so you might as well just print their damn words directly and leave it at that. To them, that is ethical.
No, my main problem isn't necessarily with their ethics. It's with their idiocy. It's not that they're too dumb to know right from wrong. It's that that they've got a warped vision of reality...due to their subjective view of life. Plus, they have the wrong attitude about their role in life. They now believe that their job is to write interesting stories, rather than informative ones. And to print both sides of a story, even if one side is provably wrong. So they won't see that as unethical, because they're convinced it's their job. And no ethics test can test for that.
And that isn't even to approach the issue of study bias or the issue of trying to test wordsmiths and professional talkers on a subjective test that they'd clearly want to pass. Journalists may be a bit stupid, but they clearly know how to say what they want to say. And so much of testing and appearing smart is simply communication skills and understanding words. People are always far dumber than they believe, but unless they've got very good communication skills, they're far smarter than you realize. And some of the people we see as the smartest are simply the ones best able to communicate intelligently. Whether that appearance is real or not is always difficult to determine; but sounding smart is not proof of intelligence.
And if nothing else, I'm sure that this ethical test said nothing about whoring it up for the Whitehouse, or routinely providing anonymity to high level Whitehouse officials so that they can say any spin they please without any real accountability. And even if it did, the journalists questioned would likely not see how it applied to them.
So it is with ethics. Good guidelines, but it's not always easy to see when you're supposed to use them.
The problem with behaving ethically only BEGINS with understanding what ethical behavior is. But it is well known that people will betray their ethics when faced with real world situations. It's just a fact. They're not trying to, they just don't realize when they're facing an ethical dilemma.
If you give someone a hypothetical situation, they will often know exactly how they should act. But if that same situation actually applies to them, they might behave differently. In fact, you can give someone a hypothetical situation which applies directly to something they've done, but in which they were not behaving ethically; and they'll likely give you the ethical answer. But if you told them that it applied to them, they'll then give you their rationalizations. That's just human nature.
Understanding ethics is the beginning, not the end of ethical behavior.
CPA Ethics
Take Enron, for example. I can assure you that, in theory, each and every CPA involved with that mess knew exactly what they should do. They stress and test this stuff in college, and then force you to take ethics classes as part of your continuing education.
And they don't focus on lofty ethics that some philosophy professor might spew out, regarding Plato or a perfect world. No. These are reality-based, specific instructions on what is proper and improper. As specific as reasonably possible. If X happens, you should do Y or Z, kind of stuff. There are whole sections on how to ensure the appearance of auditor independence, what to do with unethical corporate officers or employees, and even specifics on how to identify your CPA firm so as to not mislead people.
And each CPA involved, from Enron's employees to a whole host of Andersen's auditors, had to pass these classes and had clearly read this stuff. And if you tested them each day that they did these unethical things, they would all likely pass. I have no doubts about that. They're not hard tests, but you do have to understand the subject.
Boiling Frogs
But in practice, even those specific instructions were worthless. And the problem is that corruption had permeated all levels of their corporate environment. They all had a really bad attitude about this stuff, and it's infectious. Especially the auditors. Auditors are supposed to be polite, but not friendly with their clients. Andersen was outright pimping for Enron and seeking ways to subvert the rules they were supposed to be enforcing. But Enron had a corrupt culture and that infiltrated everything.
And I'll tell you right now, that's one of the damn things they warn you about! They teach you to watch-out for corrupt corporate cultures; and how you should document a bad corporate culture, which might even be reason enough to dismiss the client. And at the least, you should design your audit tests more strictly in order to be able to find more wrong-doings. That's just standard procedure and every single CPA knew that stuff; to the point that they were held professionally-liable for them and were punished. These aren't hypothetical ethics, but actionable ones.
But in practice, everything's different. It's kind of like the frog in boiling water thing. You put a frog in boiling water and he'll hop out; but if you put him in regular water, he won't notice when you turn up the heat and will eventually boil to death (or so they say). And that's exactly what happened to the auditors and employees of Enron. They knew this stuff was wrong, and they did it anyway because they just hadn't noticed. They just hadn't realized they were faced with an ethical dilemma until after they got busted.
No Excuse
And just so you know, from a CPA's perspective, there is no excuse for what happened at Enron or Andersen. No excuse. The media may have bought into the "sleeping watchdog" theory that it was sloppiness on Enron's part, but I can assure you that sloppiness is absolutely no excuse in auditing. There are very specific procedures on that, and sloppiness and "falling asleep at the switch" are punishable offenses. That's what the auditor is there for.
So these CPA's knew better. They could pass their professional ethics tests. And yet we got Enron all the same. It wasn't because they were unethical, and if Ken Lay had told them "hey, let's do something unethical" they probably would have rejected it and been offended. But it wasn't like that.
They had just gotten used to a certain culture, and they were completely unaware that they had long passed the line into unethical behavior. They knew they were kind of cheating, but they saw it more as a bending of the rules. And accounting certainly does have a slight level of bending involved, as it's not always easy to intrepret every rule into realworld applications. Especially with Enron and their complicated business deals. But, unfortunately for them and us, they had not just bent the rules, but broken them completely.
Ethical Journalists Gone Wild
And tying this back into our journalist ethics, we see the exact situation. This isn't a situation of unethical journalists who don't know how to behave ethically. Nor is it a case of journalists openly flouting ethical standards they know they should follow. Rather, we have smart people who know how to behave in theory, but are trapped into a corporate culture which denies them the ability to apply their ethical understanding. As with everything else, journalism has it's own little short-cuts and ways of bending the rules. And once you start going down the path of short-cuts, you often lose sight of the ethical situations you might be by-passing.
Beyond that, my main problem with journalists isn't their ethical lapses, per se. I mean, is it unethical to unintentionally give an unbalanced viewpoint in a news story? Or is it unethical to reprint unverified statements, as long as you don't verify either side's statements? More importantly, what if it involves glossing over something bad that Bush did? Is that unethical? How can they tell? Everything's subjective to these people because they see fact-checking and objective verification as being partisan. Both sides are going to complain about whatever you do, or so they believe, so you might as well just print their damn words directly and leave it at that. To them, that is ethical.
No, my main problem isn't necessarily with their ethics. It's with their idiocy. It's not that they're too dumb to know right from wrong. It's that that they've got a warped vision of reality...due to their subjective view of life. Plus, they have the wrong attitude about their role in life. They now believe that their job is to write interesting stories, rather than informative ones. And to print both sides of a story, even if one side is provably wrong. So they won't see that as unethical, because they're convinced it's their job. And no ethics test can test for that.
And that isn't even to approach the issue of study bias or the issue of trying to test wordsmiths and professional talkers on a subjective test that they'd clearly want to pass. Journalists may be a bit stupid, but they clearly know how to say what they want to say. And so much of testing and appearing smart is simply communication skills and understanding words. People are always far dumber than they believe, but unless they've got very good communication skills, they're far smarter than you realize. And some of the people we see as the smartest are simply the ones best able to communicate intelligently. Whether that appearance is real or not is always difficult to determine; but sounding smart is not proof of intelligence.
And if nothing else, I'm sure that this ethical test said nothing about whoring it up for the Whitehouse, or routinely providing anonymity to high level Whitehouse officials so that they can say any spin they please without any real accountability. And even if it did, the journalists questioned would likely not see how it applied to them.
So it is with ethics. Good guidelines, but it's not always easy to see when you're supposed to use them.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
How To Win Elections
I can't believe that Dems are still wondering how they're supposed to oppose the Repubs. Their big mistake is that they never asked Biobrain, here. But I've just about had enough, so I'll tell you what to do. You can thank me later.
Apparently, most folks think that opposition either means two things: being strong or being weak. With strength being defined as being strident and shrill, attacking and denouncing; and weak as being compromising and "Republican-lite".
But are those the only alternatives? Neither will work. Not reliably anyway.
The strong approach involves Republican "divide and conquer" techniques which play the Repub's game of appealing to your base and ignoring everything else. You divide up both sides, toss the dice, and hope that you come out with 51%. And dividing both sides means you use Bush's policy of taking popular ideas and adding poisonous amendments which the other side will reject. And it also involves picking poisonous ideas and poisonous nominees which your opponents will be forced to oppose. And if they don't oppose them, then you get your poisonous idea or nominee accepted. But they don't want that, necessarily. They want the opposition. So they can continue to make us look like negative obstructionists.
That's the game. They pick a policy good enough to pick off a few Democrats, but which will offend all the others. And if it doesn't offend enough Dems, they'll make sure that it does.
And capitulation is obviously a bad idea. Nobody likes a wimp. Even if you normally fight for the little guy, there's nothing worse than a wimp who rolls over and allows himself to be picked on. Even sympathetic people have a hard time being sympathetic to a wimp. It's human nature. Hell, the damn crybaby Repubs play the victim game better than anyone, but they do it in an attacking, angry way. Even as victims, they're aggressors and use it as their excuse for bullying.
Plus, with the Repubs divide and conquer techniques, we can't win. If people want right-leaning policies, they're not going to pick the wimpy right-leaners. It just won't work.
Victory Can Be Ours
So what do we do? We politely but firmly oppose their policies. And when I say "polite", I don't mean nicely. I mean using good manners and nice phrases. I mean, keeping our weapons in hand, but always behind our backs so that we don't look like attackers. We don't look like we're ready to jump them. We should oppose their actions, but we should not appear to be their enemy.
And overall, we just need to chill out and laugh at these morons. I can't believe we're losing to the Republicans at anything. They're so lamebrained and immature. And we don't need to say "these people are dangerous idiots". We should treat them like the grown-up babies they are. We shouldn't be overtly condescending, but we should be slightly so. And patient. Like the patience a slightly exasperated parent uses towards the children they love, but must discipline. Discipline is always necessary, but only used in tandem with love and understanding. That's the essence of good parenting.
Kerry's Blunder
For instance, during the campaign, Kerry should have attacked Bush on Iraq. No doubt about it. It is probably the biggest blunder in American history. Especially the way that that boob and his friends managed it. Simply deplorable. But Kerry shouldn't have taken his slightly angry, denouncing tone; but a friendly, understanding one. Like he knew that Bush and his crew tried their best on this, but that it just wasn't good enough. And that he didn't blame Bush at all for his mistakes. Bush just couldn't help it.
And we don't impugn his motives. In fact, we claim he had the BEST motives. But that he just wasn't up to the task. That he just wasn't competent enough to do the job we hired him for. And that's certainly true.
We should have said that we didn't think that Bush had lied or intentionally deceived. That he really did believe that crap. But that he just hadn't done his homework, and wasn't prepared for what happened. Not that he pushed analysts to squeeze the truth and cherry-pick facts to make war sound necessary. But that Bush just hadn't done a good enough job as head of the executive branch. He just wasn't capable enough. We leave open the idea that it was intentional deception, and should even mention it often; but then state that we don't believe that to be the case, and believe that Bush had good intentions. But that even Bush at his best isn't good enough for America. Which is certainly true, no matter what his intentions were.
And most importantly, we shouldn't have implied that voting against Bush was some sort of punishment for his mistakes. Because that implies that all those other people made mistakes and that we're punishing them too; and thus they'd want to stick with Bush. Instead, we suggest politely that their only mistake was putting their trust in Bush, because he wasn't able to make good on his intentions. And that we admire them for sticking with Bush before the war, but that it was time to get a more capable President.
And rather than appear to be voting against Bush out of angry, it should have been because he has proven himself to be incapable of managing our country properly. Just as you take away driving privledges from your teenage son after he wrecks the car.
I should add that I'm not a "blame Kerry" kind of guy. He did the best he could. His only mistake was in not having heard of me, and not utilizing me as a strategic advisor. And everyone seems to be making that mistake, so Kerry can't be blamed. And that's kind of the attitude we should take with everyone. Not blaming them for their misdeeds, but not allowing them to continue misdeeding either.
Grown-up Babies
And overall, we should have treated them like the three year-old babies they are. When your three year-old does something wrong, you don't shout at them (or I don't anyway). You explain what they did wrong, and try to make sure that they don't do it again. And if they do it again, you arrange things so that they can't. Three year-olds just aren't capable of understanding what they're doing; and neither is the Republican leadership. And even if you think they are, you should never say that. Our charges of incompetence against them shouldn't have been angry or attacking. They should have been solemn and empathetic. They just didn't know any better. And that really is the truth.
That's what Kerry did wrong. He sounded like he hated Bush for his mistakes in Iraq and domestically. That was Dean's mistake too, along with too many Dems. We should have acted like a firm but sympathetic father. We can't condone Bush's bad behavior, but we understand it.
And that's so easy. It's easy to be firm but understanding. We do it all the time. That's the essence of being liberal. And it would make us look much more sympathetic and likeable. Our opponents aren't grown-ups, and so we shouldn't treat them as grown-ups. We shouldn't act like they're responsible for their actions, because they aren't. They really just don't know any better. My three year-old is a good girl, but she really doesn't understand certain concepts yet. It's my responsibility to make sure that she can't get access to those things until after she is able to understand them. And she's getting there, slowly but surely.
Victory
And that's how we'll win elections. Not by being shrill, and certainly not by capitulating. Not through divide-and-conquer and hoping for the best. But by showing America who the grown-ups are and who the babies are. We can't sink to their name-calling level, and should never openly call them babies. We need to be mature and above that. And most of all, we shouldn't play their little games. We should shake our heads and tell America that we understand why the Republicans play their games, but that America deserves better.
And it's the best policy because it's the truth. America wants Democrat policies. America is a liberal nation. We just need to open up the door better so they're more willing to accept it. Not the angry God, but the forgiving God. It will work. Trust me.
Apparently, most folks think that opposition either means two things: being strong or being weak. With strength being defined as being strident and shrill, attacking and denouncing; and weak as being compromising and "Republican-lite".
But are those the only alternatives? Neither will work. Not reliably anyway.
The strong approach involves Republican "divide and conquer" techniques which play the Repub's game of appealing to your base and ignoring everything else. You divide up both sides, toss the dice, and hope that you come out with 51%. And dividing both sides means you use Bush's policy of taking popular ideas and adding poisonous amendments which the other side will reject. And it also involves picking poisonous ideas and poisonous nominees which your opponents will be forced to oppose. And if they don't oppose them, then you get your poisonous idea or nominee accepted. But they don't want that, necessarily. They want the opposition. So they can continue to make us look like negative obstructionists.
That's the game. They pick a policy good enough to pick off a few Democrats, but which will offend all the others. And if it doesn't offend enough Dems, they'll make sure that it does.
And capitulation is obviously a bad idea. Nobody likes a wimp. Even if you normally fight for the little guy, there's nothing worse than a wimp who rolls over and allows himself to be picked on. Even sympathetic people have a hard time being sympathetic to a wimp. It's human nature. Hell, the damn crybaby Repubs play the victim game better than anyone, but they do it in an attacking, angry way. Even as victims, they're aggressors and use it as their excuse for bullying.
Plus, with the Repubs divide and conquer techniques, we can't win. If people want right-leaning policies, they're not going to pick the wimpy right-leaners. It just won't work.
Victory Can Be Ours
So what do we do? We politely but firmly oppose their policies. And when I say "polite", I don't mean nicely. I mean using good manners and nice phrases. I mean, keeping our weapons in hand, but always behind our backs so that we don't look like attackers. We don't look like we're ready to jump them. We should oppose their actions, but we should not appear to be their enemy.
And overall, we just need to chill out and laugh at these morons. I can't believe we're losing to the Republicans at anything. They're so lamebrained and immature. And we don't need to say "these people are dangerous idiots". We should treat them like the grown-up babies they are. We shouldn't be overtly condescending, but we should be slightly so. And patient. Like the patience a slightly exasperated parent uses towards the children they love, but must discipline. Discipline is always necessary, but only used in tandem with love and understanding. That's the essence of good parenting.
Kerry's Blunder
For instance, during the campaign, Kerry should have attacked Bush on Iraq. No doubt about it. It is probably the biggest blunder in American history. Especially the way that that boob and his friends managed it. Simply deplorable. But Kerry shouldn't have taken his slightly angry, denouncing tone; but a friendly, understanding one. Like he knew that Bush and his crew tried their best on this, but that it just wasn't good enough. And that he didn't blame Bush at all for his mistakes. Bush just couldn't help it.
And we don't impugn his motives. In fact, we claim he had the BEST motives. But that he just wasn't up to the task. That he just wasn't competent enough to do the job we hired him for. And that's certainly true.
We should have said that we didn't think that Bush had lied or intentionally deceived. That he really did believe that crap. But that he just hadn't done his homework, and wasn't prepared for what happened. Not that he pushed analysts to squeeze the truth and cherry-pick facts to make war sound necessary. But that Bush just hadn't done a good enough job as head of the executive branch. He just wasn't capable enough. We leave open the idea that it was intentional deception, and should even mention it often; but then state that we don't believe that to be the case, and believe that Bush had good intentions. But that even Bush at his best isn't good enough for America. Which is certainly true, no matter what his intentions were.
And most importantly, we shouldn't have implied that voting against Bush was some sort of punishment for his mistakes. Because that implies that all those other people made mistakes and that we're punishing them too; and thus they'd want to stick with Bush. Instead, we suggest politely that their only mistake was putting their trust in Bush, because he wasn't able to make good on his intentions. And that we admire them for sticking with Bush before the war, but that it was time to get a more capable President.
And rather than appear to be voting against Bush out of angry, it should have been because he has proven himself to be incapable of managing our country properly. Just as you take away driving privledges from your teenage son after he wrecks the car.
I should add that I'm not a "blame Kerry" kind of guy. He did the best he could. His only mistake was in not having heard of me, and not utilizing me as a strategic advisor. And everyone seems to be making that mistake, so Kerry can't be blamed. And that's kind of the attitude we should take with everyone. Not blaming them for their misdeeds, but not allowing them to continue misdeeding either.
Grown-up Babies
And overall, we should have treated them like the three year-old babies they are. When your three year-old does something wrong, you don't shout at them (or I don't anyway). You explain what they did wrong, and try to make sure that they don't do it again. And if they do it again, you arrange things so that they can't. Three year-olds just aren't capable of understanding what they're doing; and neither is the Republican leadership. And even if you think they are, you should never say that. Our charges of incompetence against them shouldn't have been angry or attacking. They should have been solemn and empathetic. They just didn't know any better. And that really is the truth.
That's what Kerry did wrong. He sounded like he hated Bush for his mistakes in Iraq and domestically. That was Dean's mistake too, along with too many Dems. We should have acted like a firm but sympathetic father. We can't condone Bush's bad behavior, but we understand it.
And that's so easy. It's easy to be firm but understanding. We do it all the time. That's the essence of being liberal. And it would make us look much more sympathetic and likeable. Our opponents aren't grown-ups, and so we shouldn't treat them as grown-ups. We shouldn't act like they're responsible for their actions, because they aren't. They really just don't know any better. My three year-old is a good girl, but she really doesn't understand certain concepts yet. It's my responsibility to make sure that she can't get access to those things until after she is able to understand them. And she's getting there, slowly but surely.
Victory
And that's how we'll win elections. Not by being shrill, and certainly not by capitulating. Not through divide-and-conquer and hoping for the best. But by showing America who the grown-ups are and who the babies are. We can't sink to their name-calling level, and should never openly call them babies. We need to be mature and above that. And most of all, we shouldn't play their little games. We should shake our heads and tell America that we understand why the Republicans play their games, but that America deserves better.
And it's the best policy because it's the truth. America wants Democrat policies. America is a liberal nation. We just need to open up the door better so they're more willing to accept it. Not the angry God, but the forgiving God. It will work. Trust me.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Joe Klein and the Selfish Chatterers
Matt Yglesias ain't bad, but he ain't Josh Marshall either. I personally would prefer that Guest Bloggers be abolished everywhere. Frankly, I think it's a silly idea. If you're going to leave and turn the keys over to another blogger, why not just make the final entry a link to the other blogger's webpage. I mean, it made sense when Josh gave it to Harry Shearer, as Shearer doesn't have his own blog. But Yglesias certainly does and we can read this same stuff over there.
And more importantly, if the lack of Guest Bloggers means that our top bloggers can't go on vacation. So be it. President Bush doesn't take a vacation (beyond his permanent vacation), and neither should we. And honestly, for all the times that we head over to Mr. Marshall's marvelous website, don't you think he owes it to us to never leave? I mean really. I never agreed to a vacation schedule for him. And I doubt that you did either. We'll just have to have a talk with him when he gets back.
Doubting Klein
But I'm not here just to rag on guest bloggers, but to give a little laugh at Matt Yglesias. He's a smart guy, and he's often got some good nuggets of wisdom we should all crunch through. But all the same, he can be pretty silly sometimes.
In this case, I'm referring to this in his TPM comments about the imbecile Joe Klein:
"It's also never been clear to me why the High Lords of Punditry think it's unacceptably "demagogic" to point out that the Republican Party wants to gut middle class retirement security."
What's not clear about this? This seems pretty obvious to me. Joe Klein and his elitist ilk don't like something, so they invent silly rationalizations to justify their selfish and idiotic point of view that they picked up from their fellow chatterers. Joe doesn't believe that crap any more than he believes its opposite. It's meaningless drivel which can be used against anyone.
Money Drains
And in this specific case, Joe Klein and the Chatterers want private accounts because they see Social Security as a wasteful drain of their income. Joe doesn't need Social Security. You can bet your bottom dollar that he and all his closest friends have very healthy nest-eggs that any reader of this blog would gladly trade with their own nest-egg, sight unseen. You know you would. He's had a 401k, Roth IRA, and whatever else building up throughout the booming 90's, waiting for his retiring days. And even if he didn't, he still plans to have his own money. I don't know if Joe's a millionaire, but he's certainly better off than any of us.
And so what does Social Security mean to him? It's a drain on his retirement plan. These aren't the exact numbers, but poor Joe has about $5580 taken from his check every year. And if you include the employer portion of his contributions, it's over $11,000, every year. Over fifteen years, that's almost $170,000. And for what? Does Joe need this safety net? No. He sees his 401k statements every quarter, along with the stocks and bonds that he surely has (I wouldn't doubt that he's a daytrader, too); and he's got to be upset at losing that $11k to its meager earnings every year.
And even if he does believe any other arguments, if he believed that he might need Social Security someday, you can be sure that his other arguments will fall by the wayside. Because it's such an overriding issue. Even if he doesn't actively think that he wants to kill Social Security for his own selfish reasons; if he believed he might need it, he'd be singing a completely different tune. Everything would appear differently to him. Not that that's my reason for wanting it, but I'm not a selfish boob like Joe Klein.
Wasted Insurance
And so they dislike Social Security. It's a social insurance program that Joe and his friends don't need. So of course they want private accounts. They want that $11k making as much money as the rest of their portfolio. Eventually, they'd like to pull their money out of it completely; but they'll take what they can get.
And I don't necessarily blame him. Selfishness is still selfishness, but $11,000 is a healthy chunk of change to lose for no reason. But Social Security, as a retirement insurance program, requires the Joe Kleins to contribute, so he's stuck with it. Unless Joe Klein wants to feed and house the elderly, he should just keep his damn mouth shut. But he doesn't, and he's a selfish idiot, so he wants to kill Social Security.
Perennial Favorites
But can he say that? Of course not. That would be disastrous for him. Even his elitist media friends would have to drop him were he to publicly give his true reason for supporting Bush's proposals. Even the outright conservatives can't openly say that, so what's a closet con like Klein supposed he do?
He accuses Democrats of demagoguery. And why not? It's an easy position to take. It can't be disproven and, as such, it can be applied to any politician. That's why these people like the unprovable claims so much. It's a sure bet, along with complaining about decency, special interest groups, and government waste and corruption. If you've got nothing else to say, you can always rant about rampant indecency becoming the norm and special interest groups as dividing our nation. You just can't go wrong with those, and people have been using them for years. Partisan demagogery is another of those perennial favorites.
And so that's why he says it. Not because it's true, but because it's an easy charge to make and is sounds much better than Klein's real reason. And I can assure you that this is the primary reason that the media is supporting Bush's Social Security plan. Because they hate Social Security, the same way that a healthy person might hate a mandatory health insurance policy stealing from their check each week. Except even healthy people get sick, but Klein is unlikely to ever need Social Security. So it's just a drain on him.
Show Me The Motives
And this is very important. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need to get to the heart of why these people are doing these things. Don't address Joe Klein's absurd point, except to point out its absurdity. But don't treat it like its honest. It's not. He's just looking for a respectable argument to hang his hat on, because he can't admit to his real one. Don't puzzle over why they're saying it; you already know why. So say it.
And remember, this is exactly what Joe Klein is doing to us. He's not presenting a real argument against our claims. He's trying to undercut our motives and insist that we're not dealing honestly. He's insisting that our arguments are invalid, so why should we treat his argument as if it's in any way valid? Why shouldn't we undercut his motives? Especially as our motives are good, and it's likely that his motives are not. And our arguments are solid and his are retreads of unprovable rhetoric. So why are we playing fairly with this cheater?
And to tie this back into young Matt, he really needs to see through this bullshit a little more. These people toss out piles and piles of bullshit, and we waste our time trying to shovel it back, rather than taking the fight to the bullshitters themselves. And that's a serious mistake that they don't make. I don't mind debating arguments on their merits, I'll win every time. But you can't debate bullshit on its merits, because it has none.
So if someone is giving you a bullshit argument, call them on it. Don't treat them as sincere, because they're not. And if they don't know that they're bullshitting, they need to be told. Some people do it as second nature, and don't even give a thought to it. But this is what they do to us, and we're not bullshitting. Learn to play the game how it's played, and not on how they want us to play it. Otherwise, we'll keep getting buried in bullshit all the time. And I don't know about you, but I hate being buried in bullshit. I really do.
And more importantly, if the lack of Guest Bloggers means that our top bloggers can't go on vacation. So be it. President Bush doesn't take a vacation (beyond his permanent vacation), and neither should we. And honestly, for all the times that we head over to Mr. Marshall's marvelous website, don't you think he owes it to us to never leave? I mean really. I never agreed to a vacation schedule for him. And I doubt that you did either. We'll just have to have a talk with him when he gets back.
Doubting Klein
But I'm not here just to rag on guest bloggers, but to give a little laugh at Matt Yglesias. He's a smart guy, and he's often got some good nuggets of wisdom we should all crunch through. But all the same, he can be pretty silly sometimes.
In this case, I'm referring to this in his TPM comments about the imbecile Joe Klein:
"It's also never been clear to me why the High Lords of Punditry think it's unacceptably "demagogic" to point out that the Republican Party wants to gut middle class retirement security."
What's not clear about this? This seems pretty obvious to me. Joe Klein and his elitist ilk don't like something, so they invent silly rationalizations to justify their selfish and idiotic point of view that they picked up from their fellow chatterers. Joe doesn't believe that crap any more than he believes its opposite. It's meaningless drivel which can be used against anyone.
Money Drains
And in this specific case, Joe Klein and the Chatterers want private accounts because they see Social Security as a wasteful drain of their income. Joe doesn't need Social Security. You can bet your bottom dollar that he and all his closest friends have very healthy nest-eggs that any reader of this blog would gladly trade with their own nest-egg, sight unseen. You know you would. He's had a 401k, Roth IRA, and whatever else building up throughout the booming 90's, waiting for his retiring days. And even if he didn't, he still plans to have his own money. I don't know if Joe's a millionaire, but he's certainly better off than any of us.
And so what does Social Security mean to him? It's a drain on his retirement plan. These aren't the exact numbers, but poor Joe has about $5580 taken from his check every year. And if you include the employer portion of his contributions, it's over $11,000, every year. Over fifteen years, that's almost $170,000. And for what? Does Joe need this safety net? No. He sees his 401k statements every quarter, along with the stocks and bonds that he surely has (I wouldn't doubt that he's a daytrader, too); and he's got to be upset at losing that $11k to its meager earnings every year.
And even if he does believe any other arguments, if he believed that he might need Social Security someday, you can be sure that his other arguments will fall by the wayside. Because it's such an overriding issue. Even if he doesn't actively think that he wants to kill Social Security for his own selfish reasons; if he believed he might need it, he'd be singing a completely different tune. Everything would appear differently to him. Not that that's my reason for wanting it, but I'm not a selfish boob like Joe Klein.
Wasted Insurance
And so they dislike Social Security. It's a social insurance program that Joe and his friends don't need. So of course they want private accounts. They want that $11k making as much money as the rest of their portfolio. Eventually, they'd like to pull their money out of it completely; but they'll take what they can get.
And I don't necessarily blame him. Selfishness is still selfishness, but $11,000 is a healthy chunk of change to lose for no reason. But Social Security, as a retirement insurance program, requires the Joe Kleins to contribute, so he's stuck with it. Unless Joe Klein wants to feed and house the elderly, he should just keep his damn mouth shut. But he doesn't, and he's a selfish idiot, so he wants to kill Social Security.
Perennial Favorites
But can he say that? Of course not. That would be disastrous for him. Even his elitist media friends would have to drop him were he to publicly give his true reason for supporting Bush's proposals. Even the outright conservatives can't openly say that, so what's a closet con like Klein supposed he do?
He accuses Democrats of demagoguery. And why not? It's an easy position to take. It can't be disproven and, as such, it can be applied to any politician. That's why these people like the unprovable claims so much. It's a sure bet, along with complaining about decency, special interest groups, and government waste and corruption. If you've got nothing else to say, you can always rant about rampant indecency becoming the norm and special interest groups as dividing our nation. You just can't go wrong with those, and people have been using them for years. Partisan demagogery is another of those perennial favorites.
And so that's why he says it. Not because it's true, but because it's an easy charge to make and is sounds much better than Klein's real reason. And I can assure you that this is the primary reason that the media is supporting Bush's Social Security plan. Because they hate Social Security, the same way that a healthy person might hate a mandatory health insurance policy stealing from their check each week. Except even healthy people get sick, but Klein is unlikely to ever need Social Security. So it's just a drain on him.
Show Me The Motives
And this is very important. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need to get to the heart of why these people are doing these things. Don't address Joe Klein's absurd point, except to point out its absurdity. But don't treat it like its honest. It's not. He's just looking for a respectable argument to hang his hat on, because he can't admit to his real one. Don't puzzle over why they're saying it; you already know why. So say it.
And remember, this is exactly what Joe Klein is doing to us. He's not presenting a real argument against our claims. He's trying to undercut our motives and insist that we're not dealing honestly. He's insisting that our arguments are invalid, so why should we treat his argument as if it's in any way valid? Why shouldn't we undercut his motives? Especially as our motives are good, and it's likely that his motives are not. And our arguments are solid and his are retreads of unprovable rhetoric. So why are we playing fairly with this cheater?
And to tie this back into young Matt, he really needs to see through this bullshit a little more. These people toss out piles and piles of bullshit, and we waste our time trying to shovel it back, rather than taking the fight to the bullshitters themselves. And that's a serious mistake that they don't make. I don't mind debating arguments on their merits, I'll win every time. But you can't debate bullshit on its merits, because it has none.
So if someone is giving you a bullshit argument, call them on it. Don't treat them as sincere, because they're not. And if they don't know that they're bullshitting, they need to be told. Some people do it as second nature, and don't even give a thought to it. But this is what they do to us, and we're not bullshitting. Learn to play the game how it's played, and not on how they want us to play it. Otherwise, we'll keep getting buried in bullshit all the time. And I don't know about you, but I hate being buried in bullshit. I really do.
South Park Liberals
I guess I'm not the only one talking about the South Park Republicans. I was just over at Digby's bodacious site, and he had the balls to actually print some of that stuff. And let me tell you, they really had me going for awhile there; those South Park guys. But I just read through the comments section over at Digby's board, and was totally set straight on this stuff by all the liberal South Park fans.
It turns out that I had completely misread the show. Completely. You see, when they have all those characters say all those rude things about environmentalists, and welfare people and cripples; and when they portray liberal-types in a really bad way, and blow up liberal celebrities; they don't really mean those things. In fact, they're making fun of the very people that they sound exactly like. It's satire. Just like it's satirical when they pretend to make fun of social conservatives and Christians. They don't mean it. It's all just satire to teach you to not make fun of Christians and their god. That makes perfect sense.
I'll admit that at first it was a little hard for me to pick up on that, seeing as how they sounded exactly like many real conservatives I know; to the point that the satire seemed to completely escape me. I mean, we seem to be laughing with them rather than at them; but I get it now. I was wrong. I'm a reformed man.
But I'm not stopping with South Park. Hell no. This man's got a whole new perspective. The reason why those South Park characters sounded just like regular conservatives is because they're all being satirical. They're all making fun of bigots and stereotypes. Every last conservative is trying their level best to skewer everything we perceive to be conservative. They don't mean any of it, even if they think that they do. Oh no. They're hyper-genius jokers trying to teach us lessons on how not to act. Reverse-psychology, I think it's called. And they're masters of it.
And of course this means that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are satirical performance artists too. And O'Reilly really had me going with the whole disgusting sex in the shower proposal. The falafel thing really should have been a dead give away. I couldn't use one of those things for weeks. I had thought that O'Reilly was just another rightwing hypocrite blowhard. But now I realize that he was really just trying to teach us a lesson about personal hygiene and phone sex.
Damn damn, damnable damny damn. I've been bloggered! Something happened and my post never got sent. And I used Blogger's newfangled Recover Post feature, but it didn't recover the whole thing. Just the first part. And I honestly don't have it in me now to finish it again. It was good. Dammit! Why do I trust them. Until earlier today, I had always used a backup system to make sure that this kind of crap wouldn't get me. But then I stopped doing it because I didn't think it was necessary. And now I've lost the rest of my post. Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!
Man oh man, am I pissed. I went on and talked about President Bush being the ultimate reverse-psy guy, and how he was obviously trying to encourage liberals to study economic and tax policy more. And a little more about Rush Limbaugh being a bigot idiot and drug-induced hypocrite and how that was really for our benefit, and how it was "the funniest fucking show on private radio". And how the best part of listening to his show was knowing that he was mocking the very people he pretended to represent. Except I wrote it much better than that. And now it's gone. All gone.
Oh well. You got the gist of it, and it's not like this was my best post. But I really hate losing these things. Once it's written, the magic's gone and I just can't remember a damn thing I wrote. Even worse, I waste my time trying to recreate what I wrote; when it would be just as easy to spew out something else. This stuff really isn't hard for me; with my only real problem being just trying to keep it short. But once I've typed it... Oh well. I was being kind of an asshole, so I guess I deserved it anyway. I'll try to be more careful next time.
It turns out that I had completely misread the show. Completely. You see, when they have all those characters say all those rude things about environmentalists, and welfare people and cripples; and when they portray liberal-types in a really bad way, and blow up liberal celebrities; they don't really mean those things. In fact, they're making fun of the very people that they sound exactly like. It's satire. Just like it's satirical when they pretend to make fun of social conservatives and Christians. They don't mean it. It's all just satire to teach you to not make fun of Christians and their god. That makes perfect sense.
I'll admit that at first it was a little hard for me to pick up on that, seeing as how they sounded exactly like many real conservatives I know; to the point that the satire seemed to completely escape me. I mean, we seem to be laughing with them rather than at them; but I get it now. I was wrong. I'm a reformed man.
But I'm not stopping with South Park. Hell no. This man's got a whole new perspective. The reason why those South Park characters sounded just like regular conservatives is because they're all being satirical. They're all making fun of bigots and stereotypes. Every last conservative is trying their level best to skewer everything we perceive to be conservative. They don't mean any of it, even if they think that they do. Oh no. They're hyper-genius jokers trying to teach us lessons on how not to act. Reverse-psychology, I think it's called. And they're masters of it.
And of course this means that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are satirical performance artists too. And O'Reilly really had me going with the whole disgusting sex in the shower proposal. The falafel thing really should have been a dead give away. I couldn't use one of those things for weeks. I had thought that O'Reilly was just another rightwing hypocrite blowhard. But now I realize that he was really just trying to teach us a lesson about personal hygiene and phone sex.
Damn damn, damnable damny damn. I've been bloggered! Something happened and my post never got sent. And I used Blogger's newfangled Recover Post feature, but it didn't recover the whole thing. Just the first part. And I honestly don't have it in me now to finish it again. It was good. Dammit! Why do I trust them. Until earlier today, I had always used a backup system to make sure that this kind of crap wouldn't get me. But then I stopped doing it because I didn't think it was necessary. And now I've lost the rest of my post. Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!
Man oh man, am I pissed. I went on and talked about President Bush being the ultimate reverse-psy guy, and how he was obviously trying to encourage liberals to study economic and tax policy more. And a little more about Rush Limbaugh being a bigot idiot and drug-induced hypocrite and how that was really for our benefit, and how it was "the funniest fucking show on private radio". And how the best part of listening to his show was knowing that he was mocking the very people he pretended to represent. Except I wrote it much better than that. And now it's gone. All gone.
Oh well. You got the gist of it, and it's not like this was my best post. But I really hate losing these things. Once it's written, the magic's gone and I just can't remember a damn thing I wrote. Even worse, I waste my time trying to recreate what I wrote; when it would be just as easy to spew out something else. This stuff really isn't hard for me; with my only real problem being just trying to keep it short. But once I've typed it... Oh well. I was being kind of an asshole, so I guess I deserved it anyway. I'll try to be more careful next time.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Anonymous And Loving It
I just wanted to stress again a theme that I've been going on about for some time now: the people who seem crazy and alien to us really are crazy and alien. They're not just stupid or obtuse. They really do think differently than us. Conservatives of all stripes. The "liberal" media. The right-wing media. Our President. They really are different from us, and their brains don't work as ours work. It's not that they disagree in their opinions; it's that they can't properly comprehend the reality around them, which then distorts their opinions.
This is a fact that we must internalize. These people don't just seem crazy. They are crazy. You are surrounded by crazy people. So stop shaking your heads in disbelief, forever wondering why they act so crazy, and do something about it.
OUPB's
And I'm only thinking about this right now based on a few posts that came through Atrios today. Like this absurdity about influential newsmen who seem to be at the Whitehouse's command. I've always found the Official Unofficial Press Briefings to be one of the most outrageous things. And most people don't know anything about it. The whole point of speaking anonymously was supposed to be so that whistleblowers could tell the truth without being punished by their superiors. It was intended as a method of last resort, when no other way to publish the information was possible. As a means to inform the public of secretive ways.
But our incompetent press corp has allowed the Whitehouse to use official leaks as a means for double-speak; as a means to misinform. Of getting things in the press officially, but without the accountability of an official statement. So they can go back and claim that they never said it, because it was officially off the record. How shameful.
And even worse, we're not talking about informal meetings with a few reporters over drinks. That I can understand. But we're talking about formal press conferences at the Whitehouse, where they are invited for the explicit purpose of hearing Whitehouse spin. But is it presented that way in the papers? Do they say "At a formal press briefing with a Bush official who Bush doesn't want us to name, blah blah"? No. They make it sound the same as if it's some hot tip that only they were privy too. Moreover, the fact that anonymity was necessary gives the impression that the reader is getting some confidential info that they weren't supposed to know about; rather than understanding that it's coming straight from the Whitehouse. It's all so disgusting.
And does anyone talk about this except us? No. Mention this to your conservative friends and they'll feel assured that you're lying or listening to conspiracy-mongers...and be confident that Clinton did the same thing twenty times over. But they won't defend the practice, because they surely find it as horrific as we do. They'll just deny the truth of it.
OUPB's In Practice
And don't forget that anti-terror-monger Richard Clarke once had his Official Unofficial Press Briefing exposed when it turned out that he had once said something good about Bush...off the record. His damning book had just come out saying bad things about Bush (the truth), and they were scrambling to counter the truth by show how untrustworthy Clarke was. So the Whitehouse gave permission and Fox went ahead and put Clarke on the record after the fact...as a means of attacking Clarke, for something he said unofficially in his official capacity in the Whitehouse. And it's all ok because the Prez gets to decide when someone is anonymous or not...yet the public isn't supposed to know that. Simply amazing.
And don't even get me started on the Novak-Plume thing...that still is under investigation. The idea of using reporter confidentiality to cover-up a crime is deplorable. It's one thing when the courts want a reporter's sources under normal circumstances, but in this case, telling the journalists was the crime itself! Robert Novak, Judith Miller, and the others were party to a crime (or perhaps attempted crime), and they're trying to hide behind their journalist credentials to hide the truth.
Rather than being the down and dirty muckrackers standing up to the powerful establishment, they're right down in the trenches fighting side-by-side to protect Bush and his men. Normally, tricking a reporter is a sure way for them to expose the identity of their source. That's just how it works. Woodward and Bernstein knew that and threatened to blow the cover of their sources a few times when they felt betrayed. But here we have our media protecting people who were abusing the media and committing a crime in the process. And the journalists are siding with their abusers!
And don't forget that this crime was committed by the Bush Admin using their Official Unofficial Leaks to attack a political foe anonymously. Again, misusing the powers of the press to misinform. And our media is so stupid that it thinks all of this is great, and haven't a clue what the problem is.
Anyway. That's it for now. As always, Atrios has a few other links about the outrageous crazy people who are so influential these days, but you can read those yourself. And remember, these aren't normal people who choose to act differently. These are crazy people who can't help themselves. I know, you like to blame people for their wrong-doing. But you just can't. If they understood what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. And if you don't understand that basic concept, then maybe you're not really a liberal.
People aren't evil, they just don't know any better. We must stop their bad behavior, but we must also understand it...no matter how much it injures our biobrains.
This is a fact that we must internalize. These people don't just seem crazy. They are crazy. You are surrounded by crazy people. So stop shaking your heads in disbelief, forever wondering why they act so crazy, and do something about it.
OUPB's
And I'm only thinking about this right now based on a few posts that came through Atrios today. Like this absurdity about influential newsmen who seem to be at the Whitehouse's command. I've always found the Official Unofficial Press Briefings to be one of the most outrageous things. And most people don't know anything about it. The whole point of speaking anonymously was supposed to be so that whistleblowers could tell the truth without being punished by their superiors. It was intended as a method of last resort, when no other way to publish the information was possible. As a means to inform the public of secretive ways.
But our incompetent press corp has allowed the Whitehouse to use official leaks as a means for double-speak; as a means to misinform. Of getting things in the press officially, but without the accountability of an official statement. So they can go back and claim that they never said it, because it was officially off the record. How shameful.
And even worse, we're not talking about informal meetings with a few reporters over drinks. That I can understand. But we're talking about formal press conferences at the Whitehouse, where they are invited for the explicit purpose of hearing Whitehouse spin. But is it presented that way in the papers? Do they say "At a formal press briefing with a Bush official who Bush doesn't want us to name, blah blah"? No. They make it sound the same as if it's some hot tip that only they were privy too. Moreover, the fact that anonymity was necessary gives the impression that the reader is getting some confidential info that they weren't supposed to know about; rather than understanding that it's coming straight from the Whitehouse. It's all so disgusting.
And does anyone talk about this except us? No. Mention this to your conservative friends and they'll feel assured that you're lying or listening to conspiracy-mongers...and be confident that Clinton did the same thing twenty times over. But they won't defend the practice, because they surely find it as horrific as we do. They'll just deny the truth of it.
OUPB's In Practice
And don't forget that anti-terror-monger Richard Clarke once had his Official Unofficial Press Briefing exposed when it turned out that he had once said something good about Bush...off the record. His damning book had just come out saying bad things about Bush (the truth), and they were scrambling to counter the truth by show how untrustworthy Clarke was. So the Whitehouse gave permission and Fox went ahead and put Clarke on the record after the fact...as a means of attacking Clarke, for something he said unofficially in his official capacity in the Whitehouse. And it's all ok because the Prez gets to decide when someone is anonymous or not...yet the public isn't supposed to know that. Simply amazing.
And don't even get me started on the Novak-Plume thing...that still is under investigation. The idea of using reporter confidentiality to cover-up a crime is deplorable. It's one thing when the courts want a reporter's sources under normal circumstances, but in this case, telling the journalists was the crime itself! Robert Novak, Judith Miller, and the others were party to a crime (or perhaps attempted crime), and they're trying to hide behind their journalist credentials to hide the truth.
Rather than being the down and dirty muckrackers standing up to the powerful establishment, they're right down in the trenches fighting side-by-side to protect Bush and his men. Normally, tricking a reporter is a sure way for them to expose the identity of their source. That's just how it works. Woodward and Bernstein knew that and threatened to blow the cover of their sources a few times when they felt betrayed. But here we have our media protecting people who were abusing the media and committing a crime in the process. And the journalists are siding with their abusers!
And don't forget that this crime was committed by the Bush Admin using their Official Unofficial Leaks to attack a political foe anonymously. Again, misusing the powers of the press to misinform. And our media is so stupid that it thinks all of this is great, and haven't a clue what the problem is.
Anyway. That's it for now. As always, Atrios has a few other links about the outrageous crazy people who are so influential these days, but you can read those yourself. And remember, these aren't normal people who choose to act differently. These are crazy people who can't help themselves. I know, you like to blame people for their wrong-doing. But you just can't. If they understood what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. And if you don't understand that basic concept, then maybe you're not really a liberal.
People aren't evil, they just don't know any better. We must stop their bad behavior, but we must also understand it...no matter how much it injures our biobrains.
News Flunkies
Just a thought. Are news people news junkies? I mean, if it wasn't their job, would they still care about politics or Washington at all; or would they be raving even more about runaway brides and Hollywood gossip? That's a rhetorical question, of course, to which we all know the answer.
I was thinking about this while reading Juan Cole's obligatory blog (oblogitory?), and started thinking about all the damn news he reads. Now, I read a lot of news. But damn if Mr. Cole doesn't read a turdload more. I rarely click through to his links because he always has so many. I trust his summations enough to not find it necessary, plus he has so damn many of them.
But would our news media care about this, were it not their job? I'm sure some reporters would. There are always exceptions to rules. But would Wolf Blitzer? If it wasn't his job? Or Ted Koppel. Surely he was once a news junkie, but is he still? Or is he just going through the motions; reading what is necessary for each show, and letting lower level staffers do much of the work? But I'm sure it wasn't always like that for him. I'd bring up a few other tv journalist-types, but I avoid tv news like the plague (it's just as contagious, ya know); and so I don't know of any others offhand. Dan Rather I guess, but he's gone isn't he.
But you get my point. I don't think hardly any of these people are real news hounds. They're careerists who have correctly identified political news as being the pinnacle of their profession. But they don't love politics. Nor do they really understand it. That's why they're focusing on gossip so often and they can't tell the difference. Even their political and terrorism coverage is gossip-based. They don't care about facts. Rumors are just as good, and probably more fun. A fact can only be said one way, but speculation is forever.
But they don't love politics. They do it because it's their job and they're programmed to be good at things, like reading teleprompters. And acting confident and self-assured when they're talking through their asses. And on knowing which guests to pimp to (pro-Bushies) and which ones to denounce as kool-aid drinkers (Scott Ritter). And the basis for making those decisions is entirely on how it will help their career. And that's based on an ingrained authoritarianism that these fakers are entirely unaware of, which makes them believe that the hirers & firers know more about this stuff than anyone else.
And I'm not suggesting that they consciously know that they're in the bag on this stuff. Far from it. If you asked them, they would surely tell you that they are news junkies and they really wouldn't know what you're talking about. They could never have risen this high in their field were they not able to lie to themselves on a daily basis.
And that's part of our problem: the skills required to be a successful journalist are not the skills required to be a good one. And a good reporter who doesn't focus on their career is not a reporter we will hear much from. It just doesn't work like that. Again, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It's just the way that the system has become. Professional career-climbers will always win out over their more competent, but less career-oriented colleagues. Because they're focusing on the prize, and not on the story.
Scoop Addiction
And just to get at my meaning: real news junkies care about The News, not scoops. They don't care about having the latest news or a big breaking story. We care about all of it, and often the non-scoops are the bigger stories to a news junkie. But scoops are more important to the careerists. Honestly, how many reporters would turn down a watertight scoop that could not be proven wrong, but was wrong or misleading anyway? Few.
Hell, Judith Miller's made a career of getting bad scoops. Front page stories followed much later by backpage corrections. And she's still NY Times' top reporter. Even in their big mea culpa article, they still refused to single her out as a big problem. And Rathergate wasn't a partisan bias, but a bias towards the almighty Scoop. Scoop-Addiction is much more blameworthy for all that is wrong in the media than anything else. It's all about getting the story first, not getting it right. Anyone can get a news story right, with enough time; but only one person can get it first. And the guy who gets it first has bragging rights.
And another issue tied into that is Interest. A story must be interesting, and not everyone can write an interesting story. It really takes a knack. But that's another problem. A good writer is not necessarily a good thinker. And the good writer will always have the career advantage over the poor writer who's smart. That was one of the advantages of the Woodward and Bernstein team. Woodward did better research, but Bernstein was the better writer. Or was it the other way around? I haven't read that book in a while.
And so we get people who are good at writing, but who know little or nothing about economics or tax policy trying to act as an authority on these subjects. People whose expertise is writing, not understanding. And it shows. They don't know what they're talking about, and are left at the mercy of those they trust. And I'm not necessarily blaming them for that. If anyone could be an expert, we wouldn't have experts. I'm just citing it as a major flaw in the system. One which puts uninformed dopes in charge of informing people about complicated matters which they themselves know little of. Like Social Security, or tax cuts.
Subjective Objectivism
And finally, one issue is: can a news junkie be non-partisan? Of course. But not by the new media interpretation of "partisan". For them, being non-partisan and objective means reporting what both sides say, and leaving the fact-checking and deeper context to the reader/viewer. But that's not objectivism. That's the ultimate in subjectivism. It is a total denial of the existence of truth and objectivity, and allows both sides to claim victory on every matter. And even worse, it rewards the liars and punishes the honest.
Truth is verifiable, by definition. But these people have come to believe that the very idea of testing claims and verifying facts is subjective and biased. So not only do they not regularly fact-check, they think that it's biased to even attempt to do so; and leave fact-checking to articles clearly labeled "Fact Check". And when they do so, it's because a politician has said something that disagrees with what the reporter wants to believe; thus even their few "Fact Check" articles need their own fact checking. Black is white and objective truth is subjective belief.
And rather than equipping the citizens of our democracy with better information, it is to deny them the ability to receive any information that they don't actively seek out. But that is the job of the news media. To inform us. You shouldn't have to fact-check a tax return I prepare for you, and I shouldn't have to fact-check an article a journalist prepares for me. It's our damn jobs to get it right. It's what we get paid for.
Career Incompetence
But our current news media cannot do this. Not because they choose not to. But because they are unable to. They are talking heads and walking dictation machines. They are unable to do necessary research, and unable to understand important concepts. Even the easily researched and understood concepts will allude them. Because those are not the skills they were hired for, and they are not up to the task. They were hired for their careerist tendencies, and we'll only hear about the ones who are good at it.
This is so with all career fields, from a manager at Bennigan's to a stockbroker on Wallstreet. Fakers and ladder-climbers will always soar up above their competence level; solely due to their determination to rise up, and the inability of their managers to spot their incompetence.
But the problem with the media is that it is so difficult for them to spot incompetence. Because they're surrounded by it and swallow it daily. And because they themselves have forgotten the skills needed to separate the honest joes from the fakers; and have placed an emphasis on stories which sell, rather than stories which inform. They have sacrificed all to their god of subjectivism. And we're all suffering because of it. Our democracy deserves better.
I was thinking about this while reading Juan Cole's obligatory blog (oblogitory?), and started thinking about all the damn news he reads. Now, I read a lot of news. But damn if Mr. Cole doesn't read a turdload more. I rarely click through to his links because he always has so many. I trust his summations enough to not find it necessary, plus he has so damn many of them.
Or take me, for example. I don't get jackshit out of this stuff. I don't have ads (yet), and even if I never made a penny, I'd still want to do this. Hell, it even gets in the way of my real job (I really do have a few tax returns to do this very moment). And long before I had this blog, I still read as much news as I could take in, sometimes wasting hours at a time when I certainly had more important things to do. I don't do this because I need to. This is my hobby. This is what I enjoy.
I'm sure it's the same for you. We live and breath this stuff. Not just politics, but we love policy discussions and philosophy and religion and all kinds of stuff. It's all inter-related. We're interesting people, at least to other information junkies. We don't get anything out of this except the joy of being better informed. And we see it as our duty to stay informed, and need no other motivation.
News People Gone Wrong
But would our news media care about this, were it not their job? I'm sure some reporters would. There are always exceptions to rules. But would Wolf Blitzer? If it wasn't his job? Or Ted Koppel. Surely he was once a news junkie, but is he still? Or is he just going through the motions; reading what is necessary for each show, and letting lower level staffers do much of the work? But I'm sure it wasn't always like that for him. I'd bring up a few other tv journalist-types, but I avoid tv news like the plague (it's just as contagious, ya know); and so I don't know of any others offhand. Dan Rather I guess, but he's gone isn't he.
But you get my point. I don't think hardly any of these people are real news hounds. They're careerists who have correctly identified political news as being the pinnacle of their profession. But they don't love politics. Nor do they really understand it. That's why they're focusing on gossip so often and they can't tell the difference. Even their political and terrorism coverage is gossip-based. They don't care about facts. Rumors are just as good, and probably more fun. A fact can only be said one way, but speculation is forever.
But they don't love politics. They do it because it's their job and they're programmed to be good at things, like reading teleprompters. And acting confident and self-assured when they're talking through their asses. And on knowing which guests to pimp to (pro-Bushies) and which ones to denounce as kool-aid drinkers (Scott Ritter). And the basis for making those decisions is entirely on how it will help their career. And that's based on an ingrained authoritarianism that these fakers are entirely unaware of, which makes them believe that the hirers & firers know more about this stuff than anyone else.
And I'm not suggesting that they consciously know that they're in the bag on this stuff. Far from it. If you asked them, they would surely tell you that they are news junkies and they really wouldn't know what you're talking about. They could never have risen this high in their field were they not able to lie to themselves on a daily basis.
And that's part of our problem: the skills required to be a successful journalist are not the skills required to be a good one. And a good reporter who doesn't focus on their career is not a reporter we will hear much from. It just doesn't work like that. Again, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It's just the way that the system has become. Professional career-climbers will always win out over their more competent, but less career-oriented colleagues. Because they're focusing on the prize, and not on the story.
Scoop Addiction
And just to get at my meaning: real news junkies care about The News, not scoops. They don't care about having the latest news or a big breaking story. We care about all of it, and often the non-scoops are the bigger stories to a news junkie. But scoops are more important to the careerists. Honestly, how many reporters would turn down a watertight scoop that could not be proven wrong, but was wrong or misleading anyway? Few.
Hell, Judith Miller's made a career of getting bad scoops. Front page stories followed much later by backpage corrections. And she's still NY Times' top reporter. Even in their big mea culpa article, they still refused to single her out as a big problem. And Rathergate wasn't a partisan bias, but a bias towards the almighty Scoop. Scoop-Addiction is much more blameworthy for all that is wrong in the media than anything else. It's all about getting the story first, not getting it right. Anyone can get a news story right, with enough time; but only one person can get it first. And the guy who gets it first has bragging rights.
And another issue tied into that is Interest. A story must be interesting, and not everyone can write an interesting story. It really takes a knack. But that's another problem. A good writer is not necessarily a good thinker. And the good writer will always have the career advantage over the poor writer who's smart. That was one of the advantages of the Woodward and Bernstein team. Woodward did better research, but Bernstein was the better writer. Or was it the other way around? I haven't read that book in a while.
And so we get people who are good at writing, but who know little or nothing about economics or tax policy trying to act as an authority on these subjects. People whose expertise is writing, not understanding. And it shows. They don't know what they're talking about, and are left at the mercy of those they trust. And I'm not necessarily blaming them for that. If anyone could be an expert, we wouldn't have experts. I'm just citing it as a major flaw in the system. One which puts uninformed dopes in charge of informing people about complicated matters which they themselves know little of. Like Social Security, or tax cuts.
Subjective Objectivism
And finally, one issue is: can a news junkie be non-partisan? Of course. But not by the new media interpretation of "partisan". For them, being non-partisan and objective means reporting what both sides say, and leaving the fact-checking and deeper context to the reader/viewer. But that's not objectivism. That's the ultimate in subjectivism. It is a total denial of the existence of truth and objectivity, and allows both sides to claim victory on every matter. And even worse, it rewards the liars and punishes the honest.
Truth is verifiable, by definition. But these people have come to believe that the very idea of testing claims and verifying facts is subjective and biased. So not only do they not regularly fact-check, they think that it's biased to even attempt to do so; and leave fact-checking to articles clearly labeled "Fact Check". And when they do so, it's because a politician has said something that disagrees with what the reporter wants to believe; thus even their few "Fact Check" articles need their own fact checking. Black is white and objective truth is subjective belief.
And rather than equipping the citizens of our democracy with better information, it is to deny them the ability to receive any information that they don't actively seek out. But that is the job of the news media. To inform us. You shouldn't have to fact-check a tax return I prepare for you, and I shouldn't have to fact-check an article a journalist prepares for me. It's our damn jobs to get it right. It's what we get paid for.
Career Incompetence
But our current news media cannot do this. Not because they choose not to. But because they are unable to. They are talking heads and walking dictation machines. They are unable to do necessary research, and unable to understand important concepts. Even the easily researched and understood concepts will allude them. Because those are not the skills they were hired for, and they are not up to the task. They were hired for their careerist tendencies, and we'll only hear about the ones who are good at it.
This is so with all career fields, from a manager at Bennigan's to a stockbroker on Wallstreet. Fakers and ladder-climbers will always soar up above their competence level; solely due to their determination to rise up, and the inability of their managers to spot their incompetence.
But the problem with the media is that it is so difficult for them to spot incompetence. Because they're surrounded by it and swallow it daily. And because they themselves have forgotten the skills needed to separate the honest joes from the fakers; and have placed an emphasis on stories which sell, rather than stories which inform. They have sacrificed all to their god of subjectivism. And we're all suffering because of it. Our democracy deserves better.
South Park Republicans
I'm always surprised when I find that some people are still confused about stuff that I've known for years. Especially stuff that's not secret. In this case, I'm referring to the show South Park. I'll tell you up-front that I've always thought that it was a stupid stupid show for stupid stupid people. And if me saying that offends you, then you really are watching the wrong show because the show's meant to teach you to stop being offended. But I've always been amazed at the number of seemingly intelligent people who have fallen for South Park's charms. I guess one man's crap is another man's cheesecake.
But what I don't like is the ignorance regarding South Park's ulterior motives. Namely, that it's a Republican show pushing a Republican agenda. But it's not a secret. The creators of the show are admitted conservatives and there are tons of Republicans who love the show. My god, each episode could be an extrapolation from a Rush Limbaugh radio show. And it's the same brand of humor that Ann Coulter's been pimping for years. So why are so many people still ignorant about it?
And it was always so obvious. From the commercials alone, it's not hard to see their anti-liberal bias. And I've seen parts of enough episodes to confirm my belief. Sure, they also attack social conservatives, but they're not social conservatives. They're libertarian, anti-government conservatives, and libertarian conservatives hate social conservatives. And it's not that they're conservatives who inadvertently let their bias slip through; it's the whole point of the god damn show.
It was always a subversive show to get young people laughing at cripples and poverty and insults and everything else. It's a form of nihilism that ends up with you letting Bush and Co. do anything they please. You're supposed to stop caring about anything, including religion, and just let the free markets take care of themselves, as you will take care of yourself. And let the crippled and the poor vanish away.
And I bring this up because of a post at Crooks and Liars. Apparently, this is the first C&L has heard of this theory, and it is scoffed at. But it's totally and undeniably true. I wrote more about it on the comment's board over there, so if you want to read a roughdraft of what this post should have said, be my guest. But it's too late, and I've got too much stuff to do tomorrow, so I'm going to bed.
But here's some starter literature to read regarding the South Park Republicans:
The Omniscient Wikipedia's take on it
A 2001 post from South Park lover Andrew Sullivan (before his relatively recent move away from the darkside), in a blog post which supposedly coined the phrase "South Park Republican".
And a later Sullivan post.
This is far from conclusive, but you wouldn't be reading my site if you were the type who relied on others to do your research for you.
Oh, and I'll add one last thing: I really think that the reason smart people are fooled by South Park is that they believe the show is working on this really deep level which is making fun of what the show seems to be about. That the joke was that people could be so mean and cruel; and that we were supposed to see through it and laugh at bigots and hatred. But it's not. It really is as straight-forward and insulting as it appears. There's no deeper level. You're laughing at Limbaugh material. Next time you watch the show, try imagining Rush Limbaugh's voice delivering those lines, and you'll hate the show as much as I do.
I should add that I'm inherently biased against all cartoons, with The Simpsons as one of the few exceptions. And don't even get me started on anime. I hate that stuff more than anything. I'm just not a cartoon kind of guy.
But what I don't like is the ignorance regarding South Park's ulterior motives. Namely, that it's a Republican show pushing a Republican agenda. But it's not a secret. The creators of the show are admitted conservatives and there are tons of Republicans who love the show. My god, each episode could be an extrapolation from a Rush Limbaugh radio show. And it's the same brand of humor that Ann Coulter's been pimping for years. So why are so many people still ignorant about it?
And it was always so obvious. From the commercials alone, it's not hard to see their anti-liberal bias. And I've seen parts of enough episodes to confirm my belief. Sure, they also attack social conservatives, but they're not social conservatives. They're libertarian, anti-government conservatives, and libertarian conservatives hate social conservatives. And it's not that they're conservatives who inadvertently let their bias slip through; it's the whole point of the god damn show.
It was always a subversive show to get young people laughing at cripples and poverty and insults and everything else. It's a form of nihilism that ends up with you letting Bush and Co. do anything they please. You're supposed to stop caring about anything, including religion, and just let the free markets take care of themselves, as you will take care of yourself. And let the crippled and the poor vanish away.
And I bring this up because of a post at Crooks and Liars. Apparently, this is the first C&L has heard of this theory, and it is scoffed at. But it's totally and undeniably true. I wrote more about it on the comment's board over there, so if you want to read a roughdraft of what this post should have said, be my guest. But it's too late, and I've got too much stuff to do tomorrow, so I'm going to bed.
But here's some starter literature to read regarding the South Park Republicans:
The Omniscient Wikipedia's take on it
A 2001 post from South Park lover Andrew Sullivan (before his relatively recent move away from the darkside), in a blog post which supposedly coined the phrase "South Park Republican".
And a later Sullivan post.
This is far from conclusive, but you wouldn't be reading my site if you were the type who relied on others to do your research for you.
Oh, and I'll add one last thing: I really think that the reason smart people are fooled by South Park is that they believe the show is working on this really deep level which is making fun of what the show seems to be about. That the joke was that people could be so mean and cruel; and that we were supposed to see through it and laugh at bigots and hatred. But it's not. It really is as straight-forward and insulting as it appears. There's no deeper level. You're laughing at Limbaugh material. Next time you watch the show, try imagining Rush Limbaugh's voice delivering those lines, and you'll hate the show as much as I do.
I should add that I'm inherently biased against all cartoons, with The Simpsons as one of the few exceptions. And don't even get me started on anime. I hate that stuff more than anything. I'm just not a cartoon kind of guy.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Everything Neo-Con
What the hell does Leo Strauss have to do with anything? As far as I'm concerned: nothing. Leo Strauss, for those who avoid pointy-headed discussions about ideological conspiracies, is the supposed head of the neo-conservative movement, and it's founding guru. Everything neo-con can be laid at the feet of Mr. Strauss, and all of the blame and scorn for the mess in Iraq belongs solely to him. Or something like that. He died in 1973, but his dead hand is alleged by many to be guiding the current direction of our nation; in some grand new world order. But it all sounds like crap to me.
From the first time I had heard of Leo Strauss, I got the impression that he was one of those people that the intellectual-types like to talk about to show how much they know that you don't. As a name-dropping kind of thing. They pick this relatively obscure intellectual, who you've never heard of, and toss out a few choice fancy sounding phrases as they recite a script showing how smart they are, and how little you knew.
But what is their intent? Upon receiving this knowledge, will we be able to grab Leo's playbook and thus anticipate Bush's next move? Will it provide us with the right question to feed our liberal media so they can trick Bush into confessing all of his Presidential sins at the next press conference? Will it even tell us how to get a majority in both the House and the Senate in 2006? No! And that's not even a hard one.
No, this is just your basic pointy-headed intellectual stuff. Maybe it's all true. Maybe these people ARE all Straussians. So the fuck what?! What now? How does this knowledge help my life? How does this fix anything??! It doesn't. It's just jibber-jabber to help make people feel smarter than they really are. But it doesn't really do a damn thing beyond that, and learning knowledge not needed doesn't really make you smarter.
Neo-Con Parasites
And even at that, even if we were to acknowledge that Strauss is the forbearer of today's neo-conservatives, the anti-Strauss crowd makes another mistake. They seem to have this idea that neo-conservatives are a branch of conservatives. I'm guessing that the word "conservative" in "neo-conservative" is somehow fooling them into thinking that it's a faction of the same group. But it's not.
Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives have nothing ideological in common. Nothing. They are two separate ideologies with different goals and methods, who have decided for political reasons to band together. Or more accurately, the neo-conservatives made a decision to high-jack the political power of the Republican Party by latching themselves to the conservatives, who were also grabbing the Republican mantle.
But the conservatives have very little to gain out of this. They just don't realize what the neo-cons have done because the neo-cons are much smarter than the conservatives. They use the same empty rhetoric; but the neo-cons are a parasite on the conservatives. And more than that, their eventual aim is to transform conservatives en masse into unconsciously adopting the neo-con ideology. This is subversion of the true conservative ideology, not its intellectual superior.
What Are Conservatives
That's pretty easy. In America, conservatives are defined as the people who believe that the government should be very limited to necessary powers. They have arbitrarily picked the limits explicitly written in our Constitution as their preferred guideline. But they could have picked anything else, with the Constitution offering them a bunkhead to hide behind. And that's not a bad size for them, so they find it a quite comfortable fit as a starting point for their ideological discussions.
But what do they want? They want freedom for the powerful. That's what true conservatives want. They believe that if someone can take something legally, it should be theirs; and they define "legally" in terms loaded in their favor.
Muggers vs Ken Lay
For example, they believe that stealing by gunpoint is wrong because they don't use guns for those purposes, and can easily be a victim of such techniques. But they believe that, for business matters, theft by deception is perfectly ok. They don't think that the SEC and other regulatory agencies are constitutional, and they justify this by claiming that the markets will naturally self-regulate . Every man for himself...in the business world. Let the powerful survive. A mugger might steal $5, and a corporate exec might steal $5 million; but the conservative would much rather imprison the mugger than the executive.
Now, naturally it would be a bad policy to allow market forces to work on the streets; as that amounts to vigilantism. If police didn't stop theft by gun, the only cure would be for everyone to carry a gun and to let your threat be known. Wait a minute. Some people do advocate such a policy.
But market forces aren't really the cure for corporate deception either, as it would punish honest companies more than dishonest ones. Dishonest companies like Enron and Worldcom had very honest-looking financial statements. If Wallstreet really took the "buyer beware" attitude many conservative pundits adopted post-Enron, nobody would invest any money in anything.
And I say that as CPA who knows a thing or two about financial statements. The assumption of honesty is required in financial statements. You can't possibly have any idea how good an investment is if you can't trust the financial statements; and only fools would invest in anything. You could wander around a company's offices and warehouses for days and still not gain as much information as what an honest financial statement contains. And it's soooo easy to fake it. And that's why honesty is important.
But you'll always have dishonest people, so government oversight is the only solution. Not because people can't be trusted; but because some people can't be trusted and those people look just like the honest ones. It's basically the same policy that forces our troops in Iraq to shoot innocent Iraqi's. Because they look just like the bad ones.
So without government oversight, nobody could trust the corporations and so we wouldn't have a market. So the SEC isn't there to protect the "little guy", but to protect honest corporations from their dishonest competitors. And to protect honest business owners (ie, stockholders) from their dishonest employees (eg, Ken Lay). But conservatives don't see it like that, and would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater. They'd rather have crooked markets with no regulation, because they might need to be the crooked ones and support crookedness on principal. I'm sure they'd oppose it if it became reality, but that's what they talk about.
Opposing Government
But that's who conservatives are. People who believe that the government should not restrict the power of the powerful; nor should government tax beyond their necessary expenses. Everything else they say about constitutional powers and states-rights, the genius of the "free markets", and everything else is just window-dressing to give some justification for their beliefs which the non-powerful will find alluring. But underneath it all is just your basic power-grab by those who know what to do with power.
And they don't just oppose unconstitutional powers, or federal powers; they oppose all government powers. They pretend as if they oppose federal environmental regulations because it's outside of the constitution and should be left up to the states. But they don't mean that at all, as evidenced by Republican-created federal laws which undercut a state's stronger regulations. That happens to California, because they generally have stricter regulations. Conservatives prefer state-level action, as it's easier to influence. But they don't want state regulations either. They want no regulations.
And let's face it do you know any conservative anywhere that loves their local government? Their local school-board? Their local property taxes? Hell no. They rail against federal intrusion and "Washington interference", but they dislike all government. I get this all the time from my mom who always complains about unconstitutional overreach by the federal government taking too many powers from the local government; but will turn around a moment later and complain about her city council and the how wasteful the school district is with expensive chairs and too many administrators. To her, she lumps all of this stuff together. They all do.
They don't oppose federal overreach. They oppose all government. Or at least any government that takes their money without giving them a direct benefit. And somebody can always find some spending that doesn't benefit them, and some waste which needs to be stamped out. But, wow. Those last two sections were good enough for posts on their own. You really get your money's worth at Biobrain's blog. The posts have other posts inside of them. Let's move on.
Love Making Soc-Cons
And another group that is mistaken for Conservatives are the Social Conservatives. And this is something that really messes people up for some reason, because this is the group that most people talk about when they talk about conservatives. And if this is who you want to call "conservatives" that's fine by me. We just need to come up with another label for the anti-government conservatives, as the social conservatives are clearly not anti-government. They may oppose it rhetorically, but they're making love to it in practice.
You see, when people talk about "conservatives", they always say that they're opposed to change; societal change. But that's just not true, not for the anti-government conservatives, anyway. In fact it's the exact opposite. They don't want government to change into a more progressive, larger power; and they don't want the interpretation of the government's powers to change from what the constitution explicitly states. Those are changes they oppose.
But they don't oppose modernity. Far from it. They embrace it. These are the people who brought us the industrial revolution and true monopolies. Who bring us movies and porn, unregulated. These are the people who think that Enron can become one of the largest corporations in the world by selling energy that they didn't create, transport, or change; but that only existed in a computer world. These are people who want us to buy, buy, buy things that we can't even afford, getting deeper and deeper into debt.
These people aren't anti-modernists. They don't want their own position in life to change, but beyond that, they're perfectly happy with change that allows them more money and more power. They're for any idea which is for them.
Pro-Government Conservatives
But Social Conservatives are totally different. They're the ones who fear change in society, and they want to use the government to stop it. They're the ones who think the government should become more powerful and regulate television, radio, books, movies, and porn. They're the ones who burned Beatles and Little Richard albums, and banned Mark Twain and Judy Blume. They're the ones who are afraid of ideas and would like nothing more than to turn back the clock to the Garden of Eden, where sin was unknown and goodness always prevailed. They're the American Taliban.
And isn't it obvious that they're not anti-government? They're totally pro-government. They think the government should be used to enforce moral values like homosexuality, sodomy, and preventing inter-racial marriages. They want a stronger government. One which endorses their religion; their morals. And bans abortions, and birth control, and condoms, and any other activity which denies punishment to the wicked sinners. They only oppose the government if it prevents them from getting into our bedrooms. And they're willing to do it on a local level, but they'd rather ban it on the federal level.
Blaming Liberals
And that's why the anti-gov conservative's poisoned the minds of the soc-cons, to get them to blame liberals for all the wrong-doing in the country. Everything porn and Hollywood-related gets dumped at the liberals' feet. But liberals don't necessarily believe that those activities should be unregulated. Some do, some don't. But it's not a defining feature of liberals.
But it is for the anti-gov conservatives. They oppose all government regulation of business, including porn. The soc-cons blame liberals for all of our modern problems, but it's their bedmates, the anti-gov cons who are to blame for it.
Liberals want to use the government to solve our modern problems. Conservatives don't want the government to get involved at all; and see such problems as self-solving. But they don't do this publicly. Publicly, they blame the liberals. And that's Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's job, to convince social conservatives that the anti-gov conservatives are good guys, and that liberals are to blame for everything bad.
A Parasite's Parasite
And so why on earth are these people lumped in with the regular conservatives? They're clearly opposites. And it's for the same thing I said about the neo-cons. Just as neo-cons are parasites feasting on their rhetorical big brothers; conservatives are parasites feasting on their Soc-Con big brothers. In both cases, we see a small minority, with an unpopular agenda latching on to a bigger group to steal its strength. The true conservatives are a small group, and the neo-cons are even smaller. But the smarter groups feast on the dumber; and so social conservatives help elect anti-gov conservatives, who help empower neo-conservatives.
And I haven't posted about this before, but anyone who believes that we've got a two-party system in this country just isn't paying attention. We have a coalition-style government, just like the British do. But our coalitions are more free-form and ill-defined. But just as there are many different conservatives under the Republican banner, there are many different folks under the Democrat banner. We all claim the same party label, but their is a wide-variety of ideologies within both parties. Which is why a Massachusetts Republican is more liberal than an Alabama Democrat. And throughout the country, Repubs and Dems from the same area will have more in common than their party counterparts from other areas.
And so we're really just screwing ourselves by insisting that these three basic groups are the same. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. They want to present a solid front of conservatives, and we need to focus on their differences, so they'll tear each other apart. These groups have little in common and we need to emphasize that; and focus on issues in which they disagree.
Progressive Soc-Cons
If anything, social conservatives are much more like liberals than like either of their rhetorical parasites. It's a weird term to use for them, but they're progressives. And I use that in the same way as physicists who say that there is no such thing as deceleration; only acceleration in a different direction. And that's our Soc-Cons. Actively seeking to take us back to a time that never really existed, but in their own minds.
But both liberals and social conservatives believe in using government to achieve their aims. One aims to make the world a more people-friendly, tolerant place; and the other aims to make the world a more authoritarian, intolerant place which believes in one god, the maker of Heaven and Earth. Their goals may be different, but their means are the same. And they don't care if it's the federal, state, or local school board enforcing these goals; they just want it done. But overall, both groups believe that the government should be used to make America a better place. They just happen to disagree with what "better" means.
And to get back to our Straussian neo-cons, that's the category that they belong in too. And it's just silly that anyone sees things any different. You see, the neo-con agenda requires a large government. It's the basis for their belief. They believe that a large government with strong military and economic power is necessary in order to strong-arm the rest of the world into becoming a better place. And that's just an extension of the liberal/Soc Con view of things.
And for accuracy's sake, let's just remind people that "neo-conservative" was always a term of derision invented by liberals against other liberals who had extrapolated the liberal agenda onto the world scene. They were never an offshoot or faction of conservatives, and at the heart of a true neo-con you'll find a liberal every time. They just want to make the world a better place. And we don't necessarily disagree with their goals, but in the short-sided means they use to achieve it.
Neo-Cons in the Wild
But again, there are different definitions of "better place", making it difficult to pin down exactly what neo-cons want; thus making it hard to define "neo-con" and separating the posers from the ideologically pure.
Surely Paul Wolfowitz is a neo-con, and his definition of "better place" could either mean "better place for world citizens" or "better place for Israel"; it's kind of hard to tell with him. But whatever it is, he clearly has a higher vision in life than your typical selfish schlub. He's an utter nincompoop who's blinded by that higher vision, and forced to believe and say things that are either false or unknown. But he means well, and he scores a few points for that. Had he been relegated to being a smalltime professor-type at some private university somewhere, he'd be perfectly harmless. Same goes for Rumsfeld.
In fact, can anyone even suggest that either of them wouldn't be far happier as a tenured professor of history or economics at Dartmouth or Brown? Where the only folks questioning their wild assertions would be stupid college students who can easily be put in their place and flunked? They'd give up the power and fame in an instance, I'm sure. And assuming that nobody nails a "war criminal" or similar charge on them, that's probably where they'll end up once the neo-cons lose favor in Washington.
And what of Cheney? He's a hard one to pin down. I've read a bit about him, and I still can't tell if he's an ideological diehard adhering strictly to his beliefs; or if he's a shifty opportunist who only seeks to empower himself, and saw the conservatives as his main gravytrain. From what I've read, I think he sounds like an opportunist, but you really can't tell. I'm not sure if even he knows. But if he is a neo-con, his definition of "better place" is surely not the same as Wolfie's. His "better place" means making the world a better place for America to do business in, and more ripe to plunder. And there is no doubt that this definition applies to many neo-cons; especially the older school Bush Sr. ones.
And Bush himself? That man doesn't have an ideological bone in his body. Or a religious one. It's become cliche, but he really isn't very smart. He likes the ideological and religious rhetoric, but can't get his brains around the ideas behind that rhetoric. Frankly, I've always wondered if he's evidence that old GHW had submitted to government testing of mind-altering drugs around the time that Georgie was squirted out.
Bush is the epitome of the Moral Relativist. He talks a tough game because he has to. Because he's the exact opposite of who they made him out to be. And if they didn't talk about his resoluteness and strong-will, nobody else would see it because it's not there. And he's dumb enough that he really does believe the crap they say about him. But he doesn't believe in democracy and a higher vision; he just likes to pretend he's someone who does, because they sound smarter than he does.
That's how the neo-cons convinced him into backing this war. Not that they were the only ones. We can't forget that Bush saw war as his ticket to re-election; as the factor that separated the men-presidents from the boy-presidents and would give him the appearance of strength that he lacks. Strauss may have been an influence on this war, but Rove greased the wheels and made it reality.
Back to Strauss
But what does any of this have to do with dead Leo Strauss? Fuck if I know. Again, I stick with my initial theory that it was a pointy-headed intellectual way of letting people know that they were pointy-headed intellectuals, with the intellectual inside scoop on neo-cons. It's like an anti-Strauss club that only the initiated get in on, and it makes them feel superior to the regular schlubs who are totally ignorant of Strauss's supposed influence. They're kind of like people who listen to Wagner.
That's what all philosophy seems to me. It's interesting stuff, to a point; but I see it as more of a crutch than anything else. You rely on other, smarter people to do your thinking for you, and then quote what the smart guys say...as if the ability to quote fancy phrases and name-names is proof of intelligence. But even Bush can pass the memorization test. And if anything, I see such things as being traps. You rely on other people for their fancy phrases and intellect, but then are left helpless once their path drops off or loses relevance.
I'm not saying that philosophy is entirely useless, but it is certainly dangerous. It's not a bad launching pad per se, but you have to attain the intellectual heights yourself, and not completely rely on leapfrogging off the backs of others. And the main test is on whether you can explain this stuff using regular vocabulary and not the specialist terms of those you borrow from. Terminology is certainly a helpful tool, but too often it is a barrier to true communication and understanding; not its helper.
Forget Leo
And tying this back in with the Strauss, I see the focus on Leo Strauss to be inane and bothersome. It won't help us forecast the neo-cons moves. It won't help us regain Congress and the Whitehouse. And it prevents us from focusing on what we need to do to regain control, and makes us look like conspiracy-mongers. And it makes no real difference.
The intrepid Publius from Legal Fiction got me writing about this stuff, though it reflects what I've been thinking about for some time now. Publius seems to cast doubt on how much influence Strauss has had on our neo-cons. I think a better focus is on whether or not it's relevant to our discussion in either case.
As you can guess, I say that it's not. Let's focus on what we need to do to get our country back, and leave the pointy-headed intellectual stuff to Wolfie and Rummy. And let's see to it that they get the tenured professorships that their intellectual gifts are better suited for. It's the least we owe them for all they have done to our country.
From the first time I had heard of Leo Strauss, I got the impression that he was one of those people that the intellectual-types like to talk about to show how much they know that you don't. As a name-dropping kind of thing. They pick this relatively obscure intellectual, who you've never heard of, and toss out a few choice fancy sounding phrases as they recite a script showing how smart they are, and how little you knew.
But what is their intent? Upon receiving this knowledge, will we be able to grab Leo's playbook and thus anticipate Bush's next move? Will it provide us with the right question to feed our liberal media so they can trick Bush into confessing all of his Presidential sins at the next press conference? Will it even tell us how to get a majority in both the House and the Senate in 2006? No! And that's not even a hard one.
No, this is just your basic pointy-headed intellectual stuff. Maybe it's all true. Maybe these people ARE all Straussians. So the fuck what?! What now? How does this knowledge help my life? How does this fix anything??! It doesn't. It's just jibber-jabber to help make people feel smarter than they really are. But it doesn't really do a damn thing beyond that, and learning knowledge not needed doesn't really make you smarter.
Neo-Con Parasites
And even at that, even if we were to acknowledge that Strauss is the forbearer of today's neo-conservatives, the anti-Strauss crowd makes another mistake. They seem to have this idea that neo-conservatives are a branch of conservatives. I'm guessing that the word "conservative" in "neo-conservative" is somehow fooling them into thinking that it's a faction of the same group. But it's not.
Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives have nothing ideological in common. Nothing. They are two separate ideologies with different goals and methods, who have decided for political reasons to band together. Or more accurately, the neo-conservatives made a decision to high-jack the political power of the Republican Party by latching themselves to the conservatives, who were also grabbing the Republican mantle.
But the conservatives have very little to gain out of this. They just don't realize what the neo-cons have done because the neo-cons are much smarter than the conservatives. They use the same empty rhetoric; but the neo-cons are a parasite on the conservatives. And more than that, their eventual aim is to transform conservatives en masse into unconsciously adopting the neo-con ideology. This is subversion of the true conservative ideology, not its intellectual superior.
What Are Conservatives
That's pretty easy. In America, conservatives are defined as the people who believe that the government should be very limited to necessary powers. They have arbitrarily picked the limits explicitly written in our Constitution as their preferred guideline. But they could have picked anything else, with the Constitution offering them a bunkhead to hide behind. And that's not a bad size for them, so they find it a quite comfortable fit as a starting point for their ideological discussions.
But what do they want? They want freedom for the powerful. That's what true conservatives want. They believe that if someone can take something legally, it should be theirs; and they define "legally" in terms loaded in their favor.
Muggers vs Ken Lay
For example, they believe that stealing by gunpoint is wrong because they don't use guns for those purposes, and can easily be a victim of such techniques. But they believe that, for business matters, theft by deception is perfectly ok. They don't think that the SEC and other regulatory agencies are constitutional, and they justify this by claiming that the markets will naturally self-regulate . Every man for himself...in the business world. Let the powerful survive. A mugger might steal $5, and a corporate exec might steal $5 million; but the conservative would much rather imprison the mugger than the executive.
Now, naturally it would be a bad policy to allow market forces to work on the streets; as that amounts to vigilantism. If police didn't stop theft by gun, the only cure would be for everyone to carry a gun and to let your threat be known. Wait a minute. Some people do advocate such a policy.
But market forces aren't really the cure for corporate deception either, as it would punish honest companies more than dishonest ones. Dishonest companies like Enron and Worldcom had very honest-looking financial statements. If Wallstreet really took the "buyer beware" attitude many conservative pundits adopted post-Enron, nobody would invest any money in anything.
And I say that as CPA who knows a thing or two about financial statements. The assumption of honesty is required in financial statements. You can't possibly have any idea how good an investment is if you can't trust the financial statements; and only fools would invest in anything. You could wander around a company's offices and warehouses for days and still not gain as much information as what an honest financial statement contains. And it's soooo easy to fake it. And that's why honesty is important.
But you'll always have dishonest people, so government oversight is the only solution. Not because people can't be trusted; but because some people can't be trusted and those people look just like the honest ones. It's basically the same policy that forces our troops in Iraq to shoot innocent Iraqi's. Because they look just like the bad ones.
So without government oversight, nobody could trust the corporations and so we wouldn't have a market. So the SEC isn't there to protect the "little guy", but to protect honest corporations from their dishonest competitors. And to protect honest business owners (ie, stockholders) from their dishonest employees (eg, Ken Lay). But conservatives don't see it like that, and would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater. They'd rather have crooked markets with no regulation, because they might need to be the crooked ones and support crookedness on principal. I'm sure they'd oppose it if it became reality, but that's what they talk about.
Opposing Government
But that's who conservatives are. People who believe that the government should not restrict the power of the powerful; nor should government tax beyond their necessary expenses. Everything else they say about constitutional powers and states-rights, the genius of the "free markets", and everything else is just window-dressing to give some justification for their beliefs which the non-powerful will find alluring. But underneath it all is just your basic power-grab by those who know what to do with power.
And they don't just oppose unconstitutional powers, or federal powers; they oppose all government powers. They pretend as if they oppose federal environmental regulations because it's outside of the constitution and should be left up to the states. But they don't mean that at all, as evidenced by Republican-created federal laws which undercut a state's stronger regulations. That happens to California, because they generally have stricter regulations. Conservatives prefer state-level action, as it's easier to influence. But they don't want state regulations either. They want no regulations.
And let's face it do you know any conservative anywhere that loves their local government? Their local school-board? Their local property taxes? Hell no. They rail against federal intrusion and "Washington interference", but they dislike all government. I get this all the time from my mom who always complains about unconstitutional overreach by the federal government taking too many powers from the local government; but will turn around a moment later and complain about her city council and the how wasteful the school district is with expensive chairs and too many administrators. To her, she lumps all of this stuff together. They all do.
They don't oppose federal overreach. They oppose all government. Or at least any government that takes their money without giving them a direct benefit. And somebody can always find some spending that doesn't benefit them, and some waste which needs to be stamped out. But, wow. Those last two sections were good enough for posts on their own. You really get your money's worth at Biobrain's blog. The posts have other posts inside of them. Let's move on.
Love Making Soc-Cons
And another group that is mistaken for Conservatives are the Social Conservatives. And this is something that really messes people up for some reason, because this is the group that most people talk about when they talk about conservatives. And if this is who you want to call "conservatives" that's fine by me. We just need to come up with another label for the anti-government conservatives, as the social conservatives are clearly not anti-government. They may oppose it rhetorically, but they're making love to it in practice.
You see, when people talk about "conservatives", they always say that they're opposed to change; societal change. But that's just not true, not for the anti-government conservatives, anyway. In fact it's the exact opposite. They don't want government to change into a more progressive, larger power; and they don't want the interpretation of the government's powers to change from what the constitution explicitly states. Those are changes they oppose.
But they don't oppose modernity. Far from it. They embrace it. These are the people who brought us the industrial revolution and true monopolies. Who bring us movies and porn, unregulated. These are the people who think that Enron can become one of the largest corporations in the world by selling energy that they didn't create, transport, or change; but that only existed in a computer world. These are people who want us to buy, buy, buy things that we can't even afford, getting deeper and deeper into debt.
These people aren't anti-modernists. They don't want their own position in life to change, but beyond that, they're perfectly happy with change that allows them more money and more power. They're for any idea which is for them.
Pro-Government Conservatives
But Social Conservatives are totally different. They're the ones who fear change in society, and they want to use the government to stop it. They're the ones who think the government should become more powerful and regulate television, radio, books, movies, and porn. They're the ones who burned Beatles and Little Richard albums, and banned Mark Twain and Judy Blume. They're the ones who are afraid of ideas and would like nothing more than to turn back the clock to the Garden of Eden, where sin was unknown and goodness always prevailed. They're the American Taliban.
And isn't it obvious that they're not anti-government? They're totally pro-government. They think the government should be used to enforce moral values like homosexuality, sodomy, and preventing inter-racial marriages. They want a stronger government. One which endorses their religion; their morals. And bans abortions, and birth control, and condoms, and any other activity which denies punishment to the wicked sinners. They only oppose the government if it prevents them from getting into our bedrooms. And they're willing to do it on a local level, but they'd rather ban it on the federal level.
Blaming Liberals
And that's why the anti-gov conservative's poisoned the minds of the soc-cons, to get them to blame liberals for all the wrong-doing in the country. Everything porn and Hollywood-related gets dumped at the liberals' feet. But liberals don't necessarily believe that those activities should be unregulated. Some do, some don't. But it's not a defining feature of liberals.
But it is for the anti-gov conservatives. They oppose all government regulation of business, including porn. The soc-cons blame liberals for all of our modern problems, but it's their bedmates, the anti-gov cons who are to blame for it.
Liberals want to use the government to solve our modern problems. Conservatives don't want the government to get involved at all; and see such problems as self-solving. But they don't do this publicly. Publicly, they blame the liberals. And that's Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's job, to convince social conservatives that the anti-gov conservatives are good guys, and that liberals are to blame for everything bad.
A Parasite's Parasite
And so why on earth are these people lumped in with the regular conservatives? They're clearly opposites. And it's for the same thing I said about the neo-cons. Just as neo-cons are parasites feasting on their rhetorical big brothers; conservatives are parasites feasting on their Soc-Con big brothers. In both cases, we see a small minority, with an unpopular agenda latching on to a bigger group to steal its strength. The true conservatives are a small group, and the neo-cons are even smaller. But the smarter groups feast on the dumber; and so social conservatives help elect anti-gov conservatives, who help empower neo-conservatives.
And I haven't posted about this before, but anyone who believes that we've got a two-party system in this country just isn't paying attention. We have a coalition-style government, just like the British do. But our coalitions are more free-form and ill-defined. But just as there are many different conservatives under the Republican banner, there are many different folks under the Democrat banner. We all claim the same party label, but their is a wide-variety of ideologies within both parties. Which is why a Massachusetts Republican is more liberal than an Alabama Democrat. And throughout the country, Repubs and Dems from the same area will have more in common than their party counterparts from other areas.
And so we're really just screwing ourselves by insisting that these three basic groups are the same. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. They want to present a solid front of conservatives, and we need to focus on their differences, so they'll tear each other apart. These groups have little in common and we need to emphasize that; and focus on issues in which they disagree.
Progressive Soc-Cons
If anything, social conservatives are much more like liberals than like either of their rhetorical parasites. It's a weird term to use for them, but they're progressives. And I use that in the same way as physicists who say that there is no such thing as deceleration; only acceleration in a different direction. And that's our Soc-Cons. Actively seeking to take us back to a time that never really existed, but in their own minds.
But both liberals and social conservatives believe in using government to achieve their aims. One aims to make the world a more people-friendly, tolerant place; and the other aims to make the world a more authoritarian, intolerant place which believes in one god, the maker of Heaven and Earth. Their goals may be different, but their means are the same. And they don't care if it's the federal, state, or local school board enforcing these goals; they just want it done. But overall, both groups believe that the government should be used to make America a better place. They just happen to disagree with what "better" means.
And to get back to our Straussian neo-cons, that's the category that they belong in too. And it's just silly that anyone sees things any different. You see, the neo-con agenda requires a large government. It's the basis for their belief. They believe that a large government with strong military and economic power is necessary in order to strong-arm the rest of the world into becoming a better place. And that's just an extension of the liberal/Soc Con view of things.
And for accuracy's sake, let's just remind people that "neo-conservative" was always a term of derision invented by liberals against other liberals who had extrapolated the liberal agenda onto the world scene. They were never an offshoot or faction of conservatives, and at the heart of a true neo-con you'll find a liberal every time. They just want to make the world a better place. And we don't necessarily disagree with their goals, but in the short-sided means they use to achieve it.
Neo-Cons in the Wild
But again, there are different definitions of "better place", making it difficult to pin down exactly what neo-cons want; thus making it hard to define "neo-con" and separating the posers from the ideologically pure.
Surely Paul Wolfowitz is a neo-con, and his definition of "better place" could either mean "better place for world citizens" or "better place for Israel"; it's kind of hard to tell with him. But whatever it is, he clearly has a higher vision in life than your typical selfish schlub. He's an utter nincompoop who's blinded by that higher vision, and forced to believe and say things that are either false or unknown. But he means well, and he scores a few points for that. Had he been relegated to being a smalltime professor-type at some private university somewhere, he'd be perfectly harmless. Same goes for Rumsfeld.
In fact, can anyone even suggest that either of them wouldn't be far happier as a tenured professor of history or economics at Dartmouth or Brown? Where the only folks questioning their wild assertions would be stupid college students who can easily be put in their place and flunked? They'd give up the power and fame in an instance, I'm sure. And assuming that nobody nails a "war criminal" or similar charge on them, that's probably where they'll end up once the neo-cons lose favor in Washington.
And what of Cheney? He's a hard one to pin down. I've read a bit about him, and I still can't tell if he's an ideological diehard adhering strictly to his beliefs; or if he's a shifty opportunist who only seeks to empower himself, and saw the conservatives as his main gravytrain. From what I've read, I think he sounds like an opportunist, but you really can't tell. I'm not sure if even he knows. But if he is a neo-con, his definition of "better place" is surely not the same as Wolfie's. His "better place" means making the world a better place for America to do business in, and more ripe to plunder. And there is no doubt that this definition applies to many neo-cons; especially the older school Bush Sr. ones.
And Bush himself? That man doesn't have an ideological bone in his body. Or a religious one. It's become cliche, but he really isn't very smart. He likes the ideological and religious rhetoric, but can't get his brains around the ideas behind that rhetoric. Frankly, I've always wondered if he's evidence that old GHW had submitted to government testing of mind-altering drugs around the time that Georgie was squirted out.
Bush is the epitome of the Moral Relativist. He talks a tough game because he has to. Because he's the exact opposite of who they made him out to be. And if they didn't talk about his resoluteness and strong-will, nobody else would see it because it's not there. And he's dumb enough that he really does believe the crap they say about him. But he doesn't believe in democracy and a higher vision; he just likes to pretend he's someone who does, because they sound smarter than he does.
That's how the neo-cons convinced him into backing this war. Not that they were the only ones. We can't forget that Bush saw war as his ticket to re-election; as the factor that separated the men-presidents from the boy-presidents and would give him the appearance of strength that he lacks. Strauss may have been an influence on this war, but Rove greased the wheels and made it reality.
Back to Strauss
But what does any of this have to do with dead Leo Strauss? Fuck if I know. Again, I stick with my initial theory that it was a pointy-headed intellectual way of letting people know that they were pointy-headed intellectuals, with the intellectual inside scoop on neo-cons. It's like an anti-Strauss club that only the initiated get in on, and it makes them feel superior to the regular schlubs who are totally ignorant of Strauss's supposed influence. They're kind of like people who listen to Wagner.
That's what all philosophy seems to me. It's interesting stuff, to a point; but I see it as more of a crutch than anything else. You rely on other, smarter people to do your thinking for you, and then quote what the smart guys say...as if the ability to quote fancy phrases and name-names is proof of intelligence. But even Bush can pass the memorization test. And if anything, I see such things as being traps. You rely on other people for their fancy phrases and intellect, but then are left helpless once their path drops off or loses relevance.
I'm not saying that philosophy is entirely useless, but it is certainly dangerous. It's not a bad launching pad per se, but you have to attain the intellectual heights yourself, and not completely rely on leapfrogging off the backs of others. And the main test is on whether you can explain this stuff using regular vocabulary and not the specialist terms of those you borrow from. Terminology is certainly a helpful tool, but too often it is a barrier to true communication and understanding; not its helper.
Forget Leo
And tying this back in with the Strauss, I see the focus on Leo Strauss to be inane and bothersome. It won't help us forecast the neo-cons moves. It won't help us regain Congress and the Whitehouse. And it prevents us from focusing on what we need to do to regain control, and makes us look like conspiracy-mongers. And it makes no real difference.
The intrepid Publius from Legal Fiction got me writing about this stuff, though it reflects what I've been thinking about for some time now. Publius seems to cast doubt on how much influence Strauss has had on our neo-cons. I think a better focus is on whether or not it's relevant to our discussion in either case.
As you can guess, I say that it's not. Let's focus on what we need to do to get our country back, and leave the pointy-headed intellectual stuff to Wolfie and Rummy. And let's see to it that they get the tenured professorships that their intellectual gifts are better suited for. It's the least we owe them for all they have done to our country.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Roping Republicans
People like to pretend that conservatives and liberals are really different kinds of people. That they want a different kind of world than the one we want. And to some extent that's true. But when you really get behind it all, you'll see that we're really not all that different. Specifically, it's not that they want a different world. It's that they see the world differently; acknowledging different facts. But once you acknowledge those facts, the necessary course of action is not as much in dispute.
So the difference between liberals and conservatives isn't that we disagree with how things should be, but that we disagree with how things are.
And that's screwed up because there is only one set of facts in life: reality. And it requires objective observations in order to determine what reality is. But that set isn't good enough for them, so they have to invent their own. We all know this is true, but we often fail to understand what it means. We know that they shun their own observations and objective findings, but we refuse to take the next step and do what is necessary to save them. Too often, we use it as a reason to attack them and punish them; but we all know what we really need to do: pity them.
Stone-Age Nuking
And this is important because, if the conservative's facts were correct, they'd be perfectly right in doing what they do. If almost all Muslims really are trying to destroy us and they cannot be persuaded not to, and if military force is the only means to stop them, then we'd be right in attacking them. It's simple self-defense, and anything short of that is self-denial. If this was the case, liberals really would be traitors for not attacking all Muslims. We'd be wrong for not wiping them out, or nuking them deeper into the stone age. That is simply undeniable.
But we don't believe that to be true. The facts are clearly against it. We see that Muslims are like other people and that they should be dealt with using non-military means. While some Muslims, like bin Laden, want to destroy us; most Muslims do not. Not yet, anyway.
And most of the Muslims who do want to destroy us, want that because they themselves have fallen victim to a bad set of beliefs; a wrong set of facts. And that the bad Muslims who are perpetrating this fraud on the other Muslims do so, not out of religious fervor, but from political scheming and power plays. For them, religion is merely the tool to gain power, with Islam giving them an established group with which to work with. They claim they work for Allah, so that they can persuade the religious to work for them. Kind of like another group that we deal with daily.
Moreover, we believe that military means will only make things worse. Irreparably worse. That direct military assaults on Muslim countries only encourages more Muslims to accept bin Laden's false facts; thus playing directly into his hands. And eventually we really will be in a religious war that can only be solved using military means.
Fixing the Middle-East
But if we could somehow get conservatives to drop their flawed set of facts, and acknowledge our set of facts (otherwise known as Reality), they would quickly give up their Muslim-nuking schemes and adopt our policies. And we could then get around to finding real solutions to our problems, much of which involve empowering disenfranchised Muslims and drawing them into western culture. And bin Laden knows that. He doesn't fear our weapons; he fears our culture. He wants war. We need to give them Seinfeld and baseball.
Most of all, they need to be convinced that we are not their enemy; and bombing them is really not the best way of doing that. And we need to help reform the middle-east so that they can establish a healthy middle-class which will serve to drain the anger of the disenfranchised poor and enfeeble the tyrannical rich. Which will eventually bring about the democracy that the conservatives wrongly believe they can create at gunpoint. That is the only solution.
Belief-Based Solutions
And that's our problem. It's not that we see the same facts, but disagree as to the solution. It's that we see two different set of facts which have their corresponding solutions. But it's the facts that are different, not the answers. And empiricists know that there can't be two sets of facts; so something's got to give.
And this applies to everything. If Welfare and Social Security programs make people lazy and undermine our society, doing more damage than they fix; then they should be stopped. If taxing the rich at a higher rate damages the economy and loses more money than it gains, then we should have to cut their taxes. If there's a god and he opposes abortion and will hold all Americans responsible for the genocide of the unborn, then we'd be fools for being pro-choice.
The list goes on and on and applies to every single issue. But the converse is true with each of these. If the facts are against these ideas, then it's obviously the conservatives who are wrong, the religious who are wrong. And we'd be fools for supporting any of these items.
And that's why empiricism is so important. Because our opinions and beliefs cannot be trusted. Because people can believe anything, and our "heart of hearts" will always feel confident in it's trustworthiness and will lie to us about anything. Beliefs are like assholes and they keep fucking you up.
Belief-Based Problems
And that's the problem with belief. Because belief requires a leap free from the binds of logic and facts. That's why they call it belief. But without logic and facts tying us down, we can float off to anywhere and accept anything as true. Miracles, divine intervention, ghosts, Bush's inner-strength, you name it. Without the restraints of reality, we are doomed to float endlessly to wherever our imagination takes us. Trapped, floating down the river of life without a paddle and unable to see where we're going next.
And that's where these people are. They think they need their faith to guide them through life; but it only serves to trap them and blind them. They need to shed their faith before they can begin to guide themselves.
And so what we have to address is why they believe these things, and to find out what we can do to persuade them to question those facts. Not to call them names, or assume that they're bad people or stupid. But to address the basic facts which are causing them to draw the wrong conclusions. And I'm not saying we need to get them to accept our facts necessarily, but to at least try to question their own. So that they can begin to shed these false facts and begin an honest search for the truth. They'll never look for answers that they think they already have. And that can't be achieved through direct assaults, but only through friendly inquiries.
Why Be Conservative
Conservatives are not bad people. They're just weak, and overly prone to accept only those set of facts which make them feel better. That's why they choose to be conservatives, because it feels better. Liberals concern themselves with helping other people and believe that the world can be a better place...even if they have to shout and throw paint on people to get it. And conservatives think that's foolish and that everything's great and that they have no other responsibility but to themselves.
They're not really like that, but that's what they like to believe. Conservatives are likely to be as helpful individually as anyone else, but they don't accept that as policy. Overall, they chose the ideology that makes them feel better about themselves, and that's why they're conservatives. Their motto: If it feels good, believe it.
Roosevelt Republicans
But it's not evilness; it's an affliction. We shouldn't deal with them as if they're the enemy. We need to deal with them as if they are mental patients suffering from delusions and overwhelmed by their fantasies and paranoia. Because that's what they are.
If someone believes they are Teddy Roosevelt or that space aliens require them to be homeless and drunk, you wouldn't directly attack those claims. You'd feel pity towards them. You wouldn't denounce them and call them delusional. It's so obviously true that it would be a horrible thing to say, and would only force them deeper into their madness. You'd befriend them and try to find out why they believe these things, and try to figure out what you need to do to save them.
And it's different with each person, so you need to listen to that person and figure out where they fell off the path and show them the way to get back on it. And listening is the key. You must listen, and refuse to be baited by their cheap smears and offensive tactics. Those are just defense mechanisms intended to upset you, so you'll leave them alone. And that's what they want: to be left alone to stew in their own juices; unencumbered by the intrusion reality and unpleasant facts. Mental illness is quite proficient at protecting itself.
And so what I'm telling you is that you need to befriend a Republican. Yes, yes, I know. It'd be easier to breastfeed a grizzly bear with gasoline. But it's essential. Not only for our country and the future of mankind, but for their own sake. It is your duty to rope these people back in and bind them to the world of empiricism and logic. Not as a liberal persuading a conservative; but as a human helping a fellow human. It's the compassionate thing to do. It's the liberal thing to do.
So the difference between liberals and conservatives isn't that we disagree with how things should be, but that we disagree with how things are.
And that's screwed up because there is only one set of facts in life: reality. And it requires objective observations in order to determine what reality is. But that set isn't good enough for them, so they have to invent their own. We all know this is true, but we often fail to understand what it means. We know that they shun their own observations and objective findings, but we refuse to take the next step and do what is necessary to save them. Too often, we use it as a reason to attack them and punish them; but we all know what we really need to do: pity them.
Stone-Age Nuking
And this is important because, if the conservative's facts were correct, they'd be perfectly right in doing what they do. If almost all Muslims really are trying to destroy us and they cannot be persuaded not to, and if military force is the only means to stop them, then we'd be right in attacking them. It's simple self-defense, and anything short of that is self-denial. If this was the case, liberals really would be traitors for not attacking all Muslims. We'd be wrong for not wiping them out, or nuking them deeper into the stone age. That is simply undeniable.
But we don't believe that to be true. The facts are clearly against it. We see that Muslims are like other people and that they should be dealt with using non-military means. While some Muslims, like bin Laden, want to destroy us; most Muslims do not. Not yet, anyway.
And most of the Muslims who do want to destroy us, want that because they themselves have fallen victim to a bad set of beliefs; a wrong set of facts. And that the bad Muslims who are perpetrating this fraud on the other Muslims do so, not out of religious fervor, but from political scheming and power plays. For them, religion is merely the tool to gain power, with Islam giving them an established group with which to work with. They claim they work for Allah, so that they can persuade the religious to work for them. Kind of like another group that we deal with daily.
Moreover, we believe that military means will only make things worse. Irreparably worse. That direct military assaults on Muslim countries only encourages more Muslims to accept bin Laden's false facts; thus playing directly into his hands. And eventually we really will be in a religious war that can only be solved using military means.
Fixing the Middle-East
But if we could somehow get conservatives to drop their flawed set of facts, and acknowledge our set of facts (otherwise known as Reality), they would quickly give up their Muslim-nuking schemes and adopt our policies. And we could then get around to finding real solutions to our problems, much of which involve empowering disenfranchised Muslims and drawing them into western culture. And bin Laden knows that. He doesn't fear our weapons; he fears our culture. He wants war. We need to give them Seinfeld and baseball.
Most of all, they need to be convinced that we are not their enemy; and bombing them is really not the best way of doing that. And we need to help reform the middle-east so that they can establish a healthy middle-class which will serve to drain the anger of the disenfranchised poor and enfeeble the tyrannical rich. Which will eventually bring about the democracy that the conservatives wrongly believe they can create at gunpoint. That is the only solution.
Belief-Based Solutions
And that's our problem. It's not that we see the same facts, but disagree as to the solution. It's that we see two different set of facts which have their corresponding solutions. But it's the facts that are different, not the answers. And empiricists know that there can't be two sets of facts; so something's got to give.
And this applies to everything. If Welfare and Social Security programs make people lazy and undermine our society, doing more damage than they fix; then they should be stopped. If taxing the rich at a higher rate damages the economy and loses more money than it gains, then we should have to cut their taxes. If there's a god and he opposes abortion and will hold all Americans responsible for the genocide of the unborn, then we'd be fools for being pro-choice.
The list goes on and on and applies to every single issue. But the converse is true with each of these. If the facts are against these ideas, then it's obviously the conservatives who are wrong, the religious who are wrong. And we'd be fools for supporting any of these items.
And that's why empiricism is so important. Because our opinions and beliefs cannot be trusted. Because people can believe anything, and our "heart of hearts" will always feel confident in it's trustworthiness and will lie to us about anything. Beliefs are like assholes and they keep fucking you up.
Belief-Based Problems
And that's the problem with belief. Because belief requires a leap free from the binds of logic and facts. That's why they call it belief. But without logic and facts tying us down, we can float off to anywhere and accept anything as true. Miracles, divine intervention, ghosts, Bush's inner-strength, you name it. Without the restraints of reality, we are doomed to float endlessly to wherever our imagination takes us. Trapped, floating down the river of life without a paddle and unable to see where we're going next.
And that's where these people are. They think they need their faith to guide them through life; but it only serves to trap them and blind them. They need to shed their faith before they can begin to guide themselves.
And so what we have to address is why they believe these things, and to find out what we can do to persuade them to question those facts. Not to call them names, or assume that they're bad people or stupid. But to address the basic facts which are causing them to draw the wrong conclusions. And I'm not saying we need to get them to accept our facts necessarily, but to at least try to question their own. So that they can begin to shed these false facts and begin an honest search for the truth. They'll never look for answers that they think they already have. And that can't be achieved through direct assaults, but only through friendly inquiries.
Why Be Conservative
Conservatives are not bad people. They're just weak, and overly prone to accept only those set of facts which make them feel better. That's why they choose to be conservatives, because it feels better. Liberals concern themselves with helping other people and believe that the world can be a better place...even if they have to shout and throw paint on people to get it. And conservatives think that's foolish and that everything's great and that they have no other responsibility but to themselves.
They're not really like that, but that's what they like to believe. Conservatives are likely to be as helpful individually as anyone else, but they don't accept that as policy. Overall, they chose the ideology that makes them feel better about themselves, and that's why they're conservatives. Their motto: If it feels good, believe it.
Roosevelt Republicans
But it's not evilness; it's an affliction. We shouldn't deal with them as if they're the enemy. We need to deal with them as if they are mental patients suffering from delusions and overwhelmed by their fantasies and paranoia. Because that's what they are.
If someone believes they are Teddy Roosevelt or that space aliens require them to be homeless and drunk, you wouldn't directly attack those claims. You'd feel pity towards them. You wouldn't denounce them and call them delusional. It's so obviously true that it would be a horrible thing to say, and would only force them deeper into their madness. You'd befriend them and try to find out why they believe these things, and try to figure out what you need to do to save them.
And it's different with each person, so you need to listen to that person and figure out where they fell off the path and show them the way to get back on it. And listening is the key. You must listen, and refuse to be baited by their cheap smears and offensive tactics. Those are just defense mechanisms intended to upset you, so you'll leave them alone. And that's what they want: to be left alone to stew in their own juices; unencumbered by the intrusion reality and unpleasant facts. Mental illness is quite proficient at protecting itself.
And so what I'm telling you is that you need to befriend a Republican. Yes, yes, I know. It'd be easier to breastfeed a grizzly bear with gasoline. But it's essential. Not only for our country and the future of mankind, but for their own sake. It is your duty to rope these people back in and bind them to the world of empiricism and logic. Not as a liberal persuading a conservative; but as a human helping a fellow human. It's the compassionate thing to do. It's the liberal thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
