Their partisanship and cultural hostility to Obama are far more intense, it seems to me, than their genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation. And this is largely because they have no genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation. They seem very protective of Medicare and Social Security – and their older age bracket underlines this. They also seem primed for maximal neo-imperial reach, backing the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, favoring war against Iran, etc. Only Ron Paul, peace be upon him, extends his big government critique to the military-industrial-ideological complex.
So they are truly not serious in policy terms, and it behooves the small government right to grapple with this honestly. They both support lower taxation and yet bemoan the fact that so many Americans do not pay any income tax. They want to cut spending on trivial matters while enabling the entitlement and defense behemoths to go on gobbling up Americans’ wealth. … [T]he abstract slogans against government, the childish reduction of necessary trade-offs as an apocalyptic battle between freedom and slavery, and the silly ranting at all things Washington: these are not a political movement. They are cultural vents, wrapped up with some ugly Dixie-like strands.
When they propose cuts in Medicare, means-testing Social Security, a raising of the retirement age and a cut in defense spending, I’ll take them seriously and wish them well.
Until then, I’ll treat them with the condescending contempt they have thus far deserved.
Dang it. I just got home and was going to post something along the same exact lines Although Sullivan put it better than I would have I’m sure 🙂
Dense minds think alike, I guess.
AMLT – more like two great-in-their-own-minds minds without a single thought … plus, in David K’s case, how can such an inter-auricular vacuum be dense ?
There was a time when Andrew Sullivan was coherent, reasoned, and worth reading … the Sullivan from back then would have been too embarrassed to write something as simplistic as ” So they are truly not serious in policy terms, and it behooves the small government right to grapple with this honestly. They both support lower taxation and yet bemoan the fact that so many Americans do not pay any income tax. “ … {my emphasis} …
The Tea Party folk dislike increased taxes on those alreay paying more than their fair share of taxes just to buy votes from those who already pay no Federal income tax … and that is a far cry from Sullivan’s assertion …
I note that you can’t actually rebut the meat of his argument about the hypocrisy of the Tea Partiers, but then you can’t add anything of value can you Alasdair? Just more partisan hackery as usual.
What I want to know is why the tea par tiers hate America so much. They would rather spend billions in Iraq than one cent helping out their fellow Americans.
Sullivan is, essentially, correct.
I was a Conservative for approximately half of my adult life. / I knew the Conservatives. I worked for sound reforms with the Conservatives. The Conservatives were friends of mine. / Andrew & Alasdair, the Teapartiers are No Conservatives. :>
ON TV today I saw a Teaparty placard imploring passing motorists to “Honk if you’re Mad as Hell.” That’s it ~~ the perfect Distillation of the Tea Party platform, strategy, & program: We shall ventilate our undifferentiated Anger, by loudly Honking.
Posit that the Tea Party is a big tent of libertarian, conservative, and legacy (to be explained) voters.
The libertarians react strongly against any new increase in the scope of government’s (actually governments’) influence in their daily lives.
The conservatives react strongly against the same thing, and see the current Administration/Congress as assaulting the moral foundations of their society. (This is actually a subtle difference with the libertarian perspective. The differentiator is that conservatives, if in power, would actually assault those who don’t agree with their perceptions of what the moral foundations of society actually are.)
The legacy voters are those who Sullivan blithely dismisses when he says “When they propose cuts in Medicare, means-testing Social Security, a raising of the retirement age and a cut in defense spending…“. These are the voters who feel they’ve paid their dues re: Medicare and Social Security, and have spent their lives in the “city on the hill”; this city could use its military to protect that ideal which, lets be honest, exists today because of the blood of THESE VOTERS’ fathers, and that the ideals saved should be protected and promoted yet.
Sullivan left England for a reason. Asking the United States to be more like the England he left seems a little stupid, but then Sullivan always puts a little stupid into everything he writes.
The other day I was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show at lunchtime, and Rush was mocking Henry Waxman for his ill-fated effort to call out the companies that had taken big reserves post-Obamacare. Rush was full into one of his signature rants, talking about “These companies are just following accounting rules!”, which from the sounds of it, made it seem like the scope of AT&Ts reserve for an unprecendented (and unknowable) health care overhaul was specifically spelled out in a FASB document somewhere. At the end Rush sighed, re Waxman, “Hasn’t he heard of Sarbanes-Oxley”?
Ahh, SOX. The legislation designed to enhance corporate accountability for decisions in the vast gray areas of accounting, of which the reserve for Obamacare is certainly one, such that Waxman’s concern is, in theory if not practice, fairly SOX-y.
Point I’m trying to make is not that Rush Limbaugh is dumb. The rest of the story is that I made the connection between Waxman and SOX after thinking on this matter for a while, which is to say, after turning off my radio, getting out of my car, walking through several aisles, and standing in line for a few minutes. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh had moved on through about ten additional topics by the time I teased this stuff out in my mind.
I think its safe to argue that every for-profit media outlet basically deals with these matters of national significance in shorthand, because that is certainly more enjoyable for the audience, and profitable for producers, than diving deep into the muck, the way PBS or NPR do. Relating back to the Tea Partiers, what do they stand for? Whatever Fox or MSNBC want them to. At any rally of 100 Tea Partiers, MSNBC will be able to find a sufficient number with placards illustrating thinly-veiled racial animus against Obama or other assaults on traditional cultural values, while Fox will also find enough placards expressing legitimate concern about size and lack of accountability in government. The Tea Party represents all of these things, reflective of its loose organization.
So anyway, back to Sullivan: so Joanne from Topeka was holding up a sign at a Tea Party rally, expressing her concern about the size of government, and Sully finds her fraudulent because she is not effecting backroom deals like the famous Tip O’Neill/Ronald Reagan-poker-and-drinks-leading-to-the-TEFRA-act? Poor lady is just making her voice heard. She doesn’t really have the stomach for politics, and just wishes her politicians did.
Actually, maybe part of the reason why Sullivan sees little seriousness in the Tea Party relates to what he is looking at. Check out that guy’s blogroll and newsroll sometime: virtually everything he reads is either for-profit or for-partisan. Its little wonder he ends up seeing little of substance on these difficult national issues.
I realize anyone who posts Andrew Sullivan as a serious thinker is basically a lost cause (yeah, I’m opening with an ad hominem–I’m sick of the left basically acting like the right did when they were in charge so it makes me cranky), yet I will try once again to engage with three simple questions:
1.) Have you (or for that matter) Sullivan actually attended a Tea Party?
2.) Failing that, have you actually tried to engage a Tea Partier with an open mind willing to listen to their proposals?
3.) If the answer to 1 and 2 is no, would you not agree that basically reposting his statement without recourse to independent thought or research constitutes the same partisan hackery / Fox Newsish actions you’re accusing the Tea Partiers of?
To wit, I happen to agree with the Tea Partiers to a large degree. Strange, but last time I checked the President and I share some similarities in complexion. So now that I’ve taken away pretty much half of your arsenal, would you care to debate on merits?
1.) Yes, we need to cut SS and Medicare. By about 30%. Immediately. Because if you tell me that something’s not fiscally viable and will bankrupt the country, then my default solution is not, “So we’ll just raise taxes on everyone!” Um, no, when you go back to confiscatory tax levels as were present in the Eisenhower Administration, top level people just start hiding things better. Notice the Swiss just told us to eff off? That’s short hand for “If you’re too d*mn stupid to persuade your rich to keep their cash in your country we’ll be happy to have them contribute their cash here.” Bottom line, there are no “entitlements” in a world where you’re getting ready to go bankrupt. Folks don’t like it, let them vote politicians out of office–but then they better not b*tch when the Chinese call in the debt and we’re having to pay them in the traditional land, slaves, or hard currency. I know _I_ wouldn’t want to get into debt with a country that has a projected deficit of 30 million women, but apparently some folks obviously believe our government would never, EVER countenance chattel slavery. (“Um, did you miss the part about it being in the Constitution?” “B-b-but I thought we ended that in 1865…” “Well, technically your daughter ‘volunteered’ to ease our debt in exchange for her student loans being forgiven, so I guess we did. I’m sure her and that guy from Shanghai will make wonderful grandbabies together.”)
2.) Second, the way to fix a large part of our revenue issue is to fix illegal immigration. “But illegal immigrants pay SS and…and…income taxes! That’s utterly unrealistic!” Um, no, they pay that at the Federal level, but they also (via Medicaid and other services at the state level) vampire things out. Especially since they’re not counted on the census for the most part. (“Why yes, I’ll hang out a sign here that basically says, ‘Hey ICE, come raid this place!'”) Oh, wait, that’s probably got you calling me a racist…well, tough sh*t. Last time I checked, _obeying the law_ didn’t have a skin color. Moreover, if the states stop getting their lunch ate in producing unfunded mandates to people who shouldn’t even be here (“Yeah, your baby’s a citizen. We’ll be happy to let them stay, but your a** has 24 hours to be gone.”), there may be other savings realized elsewhere.
3.) Finally, how about a cut in discretionary spending? “Oh, it only makes up 40% of the budget.” Well, if I cut it by about 30% while I’m at it, I’ve got enough that we can start making payments to our borrowed principal, not merely hitting the interest up. How do I get a 30% cut in spending? Well, one, guess what Congress–no more pension. For that matter, you’re going to lead by example in taking a 45% pay cut. BTW, that goes for the President too. Has no mortgage, is usually independently wealthy, and generally gets some awesome perks with the job.
4.) Finally, I bring in a team of small city accountants to go over the entire Federal budget, then compare what they find with what it costs in the private sector. You know, where $.01 makes a difference between out of business and profitable? I think that there’s a lot more waste that can be squeezed out of the Federal budget than people realize.
Yes, outside of the tongue-in-cheek parts above, _this_ is what most Tea Partiers believe. They’re not racists, they’ve been screaming since before Obama became President, and it was the TARP that made the difference. Are there racists among them? Sure, just like there are at your average leftist rally where people kept comparing Condi Rice to Aunt Jemima. Oh, wait, I’m sorry, _that’s different_ in your universe. No, actually it’s not–it just makes you a hypocrite for not expending as much energy calling them out as folks seem to expend trying to besmirch the entire Tea Party.
James – it’ll take another “Contract With America” to start getting us back on track towards “you’re going to lead by example” when it comes to Congress and politicians … and most of the MSM will be mocking pretty much every step of the way where they are not predicting amazingly incorrectly …
In the latter half of 1994, the MSM was trumpeting that the first 2 pieces of legislation that Gingrich would pass would be ‘Prayer in the Schools’ and a ‘Ban on Abortion’ … the reality is that HR1 in 1995 brought Congress – House and Senate – to where it became subject to the same laws to which the rest of us were/are subject …
A lot of Tea Partiers arfe campaigning for the same thing, updated …
If Obamacare and a “Public Option” is so good, then Congress should make themselves the first to have that “Public Option” health care … set an example …
If it is so good to give money to the Government, then Congress should be voluntarily donating to the IRS at the levels to which they want to raise taxes on the rest of us … set an example …
If requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions from day one of a policy is such a good idea, then how about Congress invests all its own pension funds in just such an insurance company – after all, if it’s such a great idea, that company will be pulling in profits hand-over-fist, right ?
If blue is not your colour, don’t hold your breath waiting for *that* to occur …
And if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are so important then every Republican should have enlisted in the military.
See Alasdair, I can make the same vacuous types of “arguments” you can.
First, the Public option was essentially what congress has, government run healthcare.
Second, really? Apparently you don’t read. Taxes were down under Obama for the vast majority of Americans. Since when is paying less considered raising taxes?
Third, um what are you even talking about? Insurers use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to save money it’s true. Which points out the whole f
Aw of health care as a free market only solution. When you have a captive audience who NEED your product and whose only alternative is dying, um how exactly is market economics and consumer choice supposed to work? You do realize how fundamentally flawed it is to have a system that rewards a company for finding ways NOT to cover peoples medical expenses right?
A for-profit companies goal is to make money. In order to make money health insurers need to not pay out. The consequence being that letting people die is in their best interests when the alternative is expensive life saving treatments. You think that’s a good system for some reason. Meanwhile people with a brain disagree. Hopefully you’ll be lucky enough never to be denied life saving coverage because of your insurance companies bean counting death panels concluded you weren’t financially worth saving. Although I think the country would be better off without ignorant partisan hacks like yourself you might be surprised to know I don’t ACTUALLY wish you were dead.
You do realize how fundamentally flawed it is to have a system that rewards a company for finding ways NOT to cover peoples medical expenses right?
Why? Why do the insurance companies have a duty to sell insurance to people that they don’t want to cover?
Can I demand that an auto insurance company cover me even though I have a couple of DUIs, some speeding tickets and a few accidents?
Can I demand that a movie theater sell me tickets even though I stand up in the middle of each movie and start singing show tunes?
The consequence being that letting people die is in their best interests when the alternative is expensive life saving treatments.
How much money do YOU spend every year buying operations for people who can’t afford them? Why should the shareholders in a private company bear this responsibility?
It is a cruel hard fact that people die. We all will, no matter what. No matter how many nanny state laws, and how many feel good programs you force on us, people will continue to die.
I won’t take another contract with America unless it sends the current GOP leadership to the back of the bench. “Thank you gentleman, but much like Moses, you have been found lacking in sufficient judgment to get to the promised land.”
David–Interesting. So those of us who have served in our nation’s armed services now get to tell you to shut your sanctimonious pie hole and answer the question on merits, right? Or do you have another line of argument other than a certain political faction’s propensity to wave the chickenhawk flag despite the fact that they can’t be bothered to show up for stuff they find important (i.e., you probably didn’t enlist for Bosnia or Kosovo either, and I’m sure you’re ready to fight in Sudan right after you finish your latte)? Because last I checked, we’ve had a Dem Congress for 4 years, and a Dem President for almost 2…and neither have shut the war off. So, wait, guess that means it’s pretty important to them. Do you need mapquest directions to your local recruiter or you good calling them up in the phone book?
Newsflash–our country has no requirement for someone to have served to comment on whether a war is a good idea. While I subscribe to the Heinlein theory about wars, I’d just like us to try and get to Constitutional before we get all off the reservation. (If you don’t know the Heinlein theory, get your nose out of the TNR and do some research.)
As to taxes–how about we get through the whole Administration before we start talking about the great non-taxation policies of our political betters of either party. Personally I think the taxes is a dead argument until we the people stop sniping at one another and clear out Congress. All of them.
I’m still waiting for someone to respond to my direct statements about Tea Partiers. Since, you know, someone challenged for specifics.
James, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at with Alasdair. I was trying to point out that his premise was flawed i.e. unless you are willing to do X you aren’t allowed to talk about/propose/suggest/criticize X. There is no need to get snarky with your “newsflash” comment and what not. To put it bluntly, your last post to me was rather assholish without reason. Of course your free to post however you like, but it’s not likely to make me or anyone else want to make the effort to take you seriously if you do. I’m more than willing to respectfully disagree with people and debate them. On the other hand I’ve gotten sick of puting up with the assholish behavior of commenters like gahrie and alasdair (both of whom tried to take a civil tact with initially) so my patience is thin for that sort of thing.
David–I will merely say you were unclear on the premise of your statement, i.e. that it was a dig at Alasdair rather than your actual feelings. Just as you get somewhat annoyed with people who make that comment, I get annoyed with people who come back with what I call the “chickenhawk” argument, i.e. “You didn’t serve ergo shut up.” Big pet peeve, as you can see.
I’m a bit sarcastic. Some say it’s a feature, some a flaw. I don’t get ad hominem (i.e., your momma’s a fat cow), but I do definitely consider debate a contact sport. (However, I don’t take umbrage at someone throwing sharp elbows back.)
In response to your earlier comment on health care, btw–what’s the fix? Because I dont’ think this last bill is going to be the fix and, even worse, I think the way in which it was done means that we’re not going to have a bipartisan fix any time soon. We can argue all we want about the GOP being the party of “No”–the fact remains Nancy Pelosi basically shoved a sh*t pie in their face. You telling me there weren’t 20 Elephants that the Dems couldn’t have picked off if the House had been slightly less belligerent? I don’t think so, but I think now we’ve got the equivalent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, i.e. a “solution” that is going to simply polarize both sides now.
To respond to James@8, 3 questions:
1) Do we really need to attend a tea party to know what they’re about. I get foxnews on cable and they have entire weekends devoted to Tea Party events.
2) Thus far Tea Partiers are just critics and offer nothing in terms of being contrarian to everything the government/democrats are doing. Whether they do the same things they support when Republicans do them (ie give money to banks with no strings attached or favor reducing Nuclear arms), or cut taxes, save home foreclosures for Americans, and increase health care availability.
It’s interesting that James says he agrees with Tea Partiers but in fact is not one himself. I’d say most intelligent people would take that position because the people most prominently featured in this Tea Party movement are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, if not two uneducated crack head morons or lunatics in real life, they play them on TV. I’m not sure if they are more amused themselves by the crazy things they say, or the fact that they have a legion of morons who echo those things. I’m amazed by it personally.
Part II
“Yes, we need to cut SS and Medicare. By about 30%. Immediately. Because if you tell me that something’s not fiscally viable and will bankrupt the country,”
1) Now where are you getting these stats, and did you know that if we just stop attacking countries that pose no threat to us, we’d save about 300 times the amount of money we spend on SS and Medicare?
2) Okay, so you hate illegal immigrants, or you hate the crime they commit by seeking a better life for themselves in the greatest country on earth. That’s about as American as you can get, and definitely puts you in good company with the Tea Party.
3) I agree that government workers pensions, not just politicians, are sinking state governments (namely California), but this isn’t going to significantly do anything in terms of found money for federal savings.
4) Great suggestion on the private government audit. Let me know how that goes at the next Town Hall.
You’ve got a couple decent suggestions, but this isn’t the Tea Party’s platform, so I don’t know what the point of this post is. Obama and the democrats didn’t sink the country into an abyss. We voted “them” out of office in 2006 when “them” was the Republicans and Americans saw the country going in the wrong direction for YEARS. So now we’re going to vote “them” out of office again and put Republicans back into office? That’s totally moronic. Especially moronic about the “Vote them out” mantra is who the hell are you voting IN? We voted JD Hayworth out of office because he’s a total piece of shit, now we’re voting him back in because we’re voting John McCain out of office for failing us. Does this make sense?
Have some tea.
On the other hand I’ve gotten sick of puting up with the assholish behavior of commenters like gahrie and alasdair (both of whom tried to take a civil tact with initially) so my patience is thin for that sort of thing.
What alternate reality are you living in? You started making personal attacks on me from the first political post I made on this site.
I on the other hand only slipped up once and let my anger get the better of me and attack you personally.
90% of your posts on this site are personal attacks on someone or another, and you almost never address the facts presented to you.
Sandy,
You get to the point of my post when you say, “I know all I need to know by watching Fox News.” Any time I find out someone is watching what passes for “news” as their sole source of information, I’m already raising my eyebrow. There’s a great many other sources of news other than shows that rely on ratings (and thus must have some level of “spin”), and there’s always doing independent research. Go to your next local Tea Party and engage someone in debate. I think you’ll find it enlightening. I’m willing to talk to anyone but Anarchists (hello, chaos is contagious) and Satanists (so you believe in God, you’ve just chosen to go with the side that thinks anything goes)–it helps one become a bit more rounded.
Honestly, there are several reasons I don’t do Tea Parties. For public consumption, the first is that third parties don’t generally do well in this country–they usually get coopted by one of the big two parties or burn out when the issue passes. In addition, I’m in grad school–don’t have two to three hours to spend hanging around singing “God Bless America.” When someone figures out a direction and plan to actually put some of their good ideas to work (because, yes, there are some good ideas), I’m all in provided the proverbial band’s not striking up “Nearer My God to Thee.” But until then, I don’t do group commiseration.
I also applaud your (incorrect) attempt to cast my as a xenophobic nativist. It is not “seeking a better life for themselves” when they break the law. By that logic, bank robbers are seeking a better life for themselves when they decide to seize other people’s money. There is an immigration process. It is not exactly onerous compared to some other nations’, and for the record the nice wholesome apple pie image of earlier American immigration is a farce. As someone married to a resident alien, I know first hand that the immigration process sucks. But guess what–so does driving the speed limit and not killing people who really deserve it. I don’t see you casting aspersions on anyone who thinks following those laws is, you know, important–so why the Tea Partiers?
Basically your response to all my questions is to say that’s not viable. To which I say, “So doing exactly what we’re doing is?” The Social Security trustee, for one, states that SS / Medicare is going to bankrupt us by 2040 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/48020). Given that most government estimates are based on assumptions that have only a passing relationship with the reality we live in, I think that we’ve got about, oh, 15 years before the crap hits the fan. By hits the fan I mean, “Holy sh*t, we’re looking like England after World War I–broke as hell.”
The fact that this is readily apparent yet no one is doing anything about it is yet another reason I don’t join parties. One, the partisanship in this country has just gotten ridiculous. I mean, seriously, help foreclosures? The Dems had a super majority for almost a year. A big step might have been, you know, simply passing a law that fixed the interest rate at something ludicrous (like, oh, 2.0%) for all ARMs and made mortgage payments for the 2009 tax year tax deductible on a 1:1 basis for all homes owned prior to 2008. Simultaneously drops the payments and gives people incentive to not walk away from their underwater houses. Crazy? Probably–but the ARM reset that’s about to ensue in, oh, about 30-60 days depending on who you listen to is going to make “crazy” seem relatively benign. Yet did you hear anyone suggesting that? No. Instead we got a byzantine program that has only saved something like 25k homes since its inception. I can feel the wholesome goodness already.
Found money? How about trying to head off the imminent fiscal disaster _in the future_, Sandy? Just taking teachers alone, the pension funds are 300-500 billion dollars underwater depending on whom you ask. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think _half a trillion dollars_ in the hole is going to lead to something bad. You think the Federal government is just going to let the states crater? I’d like to believe that either party has the political cojones to do this, but see above–I’m not holding my breath.
I’m not getting into a debate over “countries that didn’t attack us.” That’s a bipartisan f___k up, and I’ve said as much since 2003. Remind me again just how many Democrats, because they were scared of getting painted as wusses, voted against their so-called principles? On the other side, I always thought Republicans were strict constructionalists, and I don’t recall seeing the words “authorization to use military force” in the Constitution. No, it is _not_ the same thing, and if you read the text of that document it’s SOOOOO not the same thing. The Founding Fathers used words for effect. Partially so the concept of “martial blank checks” wouldn’t be in play. You’d think we learned our lesson after that Tonkin Gulf thing went heavily awry. But I digress.
Finally, it’s not just reducing nuclear arms–it’s the way in which we’re doing it. First off, if you’re going to negotiate with the Russians, don’t allow them to get rid of a bunch of their aging strategic arms while we agree to rid ourselves of dual-use systems (e.g., B-52s and such). Second, our nukes are rapidly becoming _unsafe_. I’m all for adopting the Chinese approach (“No, we don’t have enough nukes to take out your arsenal in a first strike. We just have enough to basically wreck your country if it comes to that. Except it won’t be a quick wrecking. Rather than bullet to the head, think more like a sledgehammer to your abdomen that squeezes the contents of your colon into your abdominal cavity then you die from the sepsis.”). However, let’s actually, you know, _adopt such a nuclear policy_ rather than simply twiddling our thumbs until it happens because our stuff’s starting to spontaneously fail in the silos.
James – as is David K’s wont, he mischaracterises (or possibly flat out misunderstands) my point about Congress needing to be subject to the laws they pass … (and I seem to recall that Heinlein (paraphrased) supported the idea that those who feel undertaxed should feel free to volunteer more of their own income, rather than trying simply to confiscate other people’s income) … and that’s nowhere near close to “If you haven’t enlisted, you are not allowed to have an opinion on things martial” …
Mutual Assured Destruction is *not* a comfortable concept – it just happens to work and to have worked … Unilateral Disarmament (or the variant that “promises” not to develop as long as the other side “promises” the same), not so much …
As someone recently commented in a blog (my paraphrasing), give one example of a society or civilisation which unilaterally disarmed and survived for any appreciable time ? I’m a voracious reader – and *I* cannot think of a single one …
I have lived under the British Healthcare system, the Canadian Healthcare system, and the US Healthcare system … of the three, the pre-Obamacare US system has the best outcomes for the most people, by all that I can find … all 3 systems have flaws – the US system has the advantage that it doesn’t glory in any need to treat *everyone* equally badly even when better outcomes are possible …
OH – before I forget again … “I always thought Republicans were strict constructionalists” … I’m a Scot (Brit by origin), now a resident Glendalien … the GOP that I can find isn’t strict anything … it has an amazing wide tent, whether it’s by melanin levels, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, whichever flavour of abortion support … the various flavours may not like each other that much all the time, but they at least they don’t ban ’em from prime time quite as consistently as the Dems do … the GOP mostly doesn’t talk about diversity, they just do it … as opposed to the Dems who go on and on and on about it, but seem only to practice it when there are folk watching … or if it is visual diversity, while diversity of thought and opinion is rooted out with the fervour of the Inquisition …
(FWIW – I probably share your complexion somewhat, at least in small round patches aka freckles – most of me is pale pink, however) …
Here’s a thought experiment:
I can do the same thing quite easily with Obamabots circa 2008, teasing in how Obama himself recognized that he was a blank canvas upon which his followers could paint any political belief they wanted. Or I could go back further and describe the phenomenon that was Ross Perot and the ~30% of the electorate that he rallied and inspired.
The point is, Andrew’s critique is completely unserious. It boils down to attacking a populist movement for the very qualities that make it a populist (vs. elitist or partisan or single-issue) movement: its members hold divergent and conflicting views; they are not familiar with policy nuances; they are more anti- than they are pro-; they rally to the fervor of pathos-laden speeches and arguments rather then ethos- or logos-laden ones. Pulling a representative onto a dais and attempting to use them as a foil to coherently debate the amalgam of everything the Tea Party stands for shows a disrespect for the very citizenry for which you claim to hold the best interests.
The only way to analyze mass movements like this is to look at the broadest of brushstrokes:
– How deep, and how broad, is the movement?
– What is the potency of their electoral force?
– To what degree are they representing and/or tapping into the concerns and reservations felt by broader electorate?
– What policy initiatives will diffuse their anger; what policy initiatives will aggravate it?
If, by and large, the answers to these questions are unhelpful and/or hostile to your agenda, then you have no choice but to tarnish them, ignore them, and rally the rest of the masses to your side (this is what Rove and the Republicans did vis-a-vis the anti-war movement). But sometimes there are parts of the movement that are not wholly inimical to what you’re trying to accomplish, and you can attempt to co-opt some of their political energy and numbers. Both Clinton and the GOP did this successfully with the Perotistas, which is why Perot and the Reform Party was a total non-threat in 1996 and beyond.
It’s clear from listening to Obama that he is wavering and trying to grapple with the best way to respond to the Tea Party movement. Obviously, some degree of this movement is completely hostile to him and everything he stands for, but he has also probably discovered that he cannot attack and ignore them a la Bush and the anti-war movement without serious damage to his party and his own re-election hopes. The hilarious flip-flopping of the media’s portrayal of the movement is reflective of this administration’s unease and inability to decide how exactly to engage the Tea Partiers. The next seven months thus will be democratic theatre at its most intriguing, until an interim verdict is rendered the first Tuesday of this November.
As for Andrew Sullivan and his ilk, it is pointless trying to engage with them — and especially him — because their presuppositions render everything that follows an exercise in circular logic. On top of this, since Sullivan’s ideology twists with the wind and exists more as an exercise in catharsis than as a dscription of reality, it helps to syncretize phantommut at #6 and James Young at #8: “Sullivan always puts a little stupid into everything he writes, so anyone who posts Andrew Sullivan as a serious thinker is basically a lost cause.”
Okay, against my better judgment, I’ll bite.
gahrie posits an interesting question, it is actually at the root of ts entire debate really. Should we, as a people, promote the genreral welfare by providing health care to all?
As to point one. No, we should not force private insurance to cover everyone. The government should provide a basic level of care to all citizens. If private insurance can provide a compelling product on top of that so be it, if they can’t they can go out of business and good riddance to bad garbage.
Why should we all pay? Why do we all pay for the fire department, because it is in our collective best intreats to do so. I don’t really want to pay for the fat smoking republican’s heat, diabetes, blood pressure, and lung cancer. And he bitches about paying for MMR shots for babies who’s parents can’t afford them. But, in the end it is in the best interest of everyone that everyone get preventative care. Stoping a fire before it wipes out Chicago is in the common interest, stoping a flu pandemic is likewise in the common interest
Anyway, at the root level that is the debate, is healthcare like fire and police and worth providing to everyone or is it not. Should life and death be means tested? Because at the end of the day that is what gahrie is arguing for. Or should it not, and as a nation should we carry that burden together like we do police, fire, defense, etc?
It’s okay if you are a cold hard bastard, but relize what the debate is actually about and stop surrounding it in bull shit. And admit you are, and then tell us why.
Realize that Medicare is substantially more efficient than any private insurance company. In other words, there really are some things government can do.
I find it funny that Republicans assume that the profit motive make business more efficient, it doesn’t it just makes sure they make room for a profit. And that profit makes it more costly to hire a contractor than for government to do for itself. In some cases it is still more efficient that way, but it does not actually cost less. Because you have to pay for the thing and the profit for share holders not just the thing. When it comes to jets this makes sense, when you are talking about printing it’s stupid. Government is neither inherently efficient or inefficient, better or worse than the private sector. But the difference is the private sector must make money, and the government doesn’t have to. So do keep that in mind it is important to remember.
Apologies for the excess in typos, on a mobile device at the moment. Hopefully the general idea comes across.
Should life and death be means tested?
You almost got my point. Life and death is always going to be means tested. The question is, who or what is going to do the testing?
I don’t think the government should. I think individuals, families and communities should.
dcl makes a great point, and to his point let me say that I don’t want to pay for the Police department or fire department, because I take care of my own business MY way and because I’m cautious enough not to let my crap catch on fire or my kids drown, I shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s negligence.
James@17, you’ve got a lot of information in that post, and to recap. If absolutely nothing changes in the universe and ss and medicare are destined to bankrupt us by 2040, I can live with it. I’ll be 65 by then, and most Americans alive today, won’t be alive then, so I fail to see why this is a pressing concern.
It’s not my life’s purpose to know everything inside and out about the Tea Party. I don’t need to go to one of their events and engage one of them in a debate to gain more knoweledge about them. Their frontmen are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, they’re angry about spending. I wonder where they’ve been the last 10 years, but we all know they’ve been up George Bush’s ass and they’re just angry that their party isn’t in power. Trust me, I know the feeling. I empathize with them, but that’s what they are.
Teachers pensions account for $300-500 billion? I just don’t buy that figure. They make around 40k working year round in Los Angeles, so when they retire they all become millionaires? Seems delusional. Furthermore that’s not federal money it’s state and local, so it’s really irrelevant in this discussion.
Yes, there’s probably a better way to save homes from foreclosure. I believe there is always room for improvement, but this is government, we don’t want them setting interest rates and mandating low interest loans, I thought this was what you and the tea party were against.
I don’t think you’re a xenophobe. Most Americans hate the mexicans, and that seems pretty acceptable. It’s interesting that you’re married to a resident alien and understand how the naturalization process works and then seamlessly compare illegal immigrants to bank robbers. As a completely made up statistic, based only on my first hand experience, 99% of illegals come to the United States seeking a better life for themselves and their family and abide by the rules and laws of the country. Granted, I don’t know a lot of bank robbers so my stats may be skewed, but I really don’t think they are. Since you’re married, I guess you don’t have to live outside the country for 2 years with your spouse before your partner becomes a citizen, that’s another gem of the 10 year naturalization process for illegals (who don’t find a gringo to marry) to gain temporary work in the US.
Yes, there’s a better way to reduce the prevalence of nuclear arms. There’s always a better way, but things are moving in a better direction than sitting on our hands and doing nothing. The US government is not going to sell themselves out militarily. I know Palin the Tea Party queen was trying to sell this to her moronic following, and they drank it up, but thank goodness they’re in a category all for themselves.
Gahrie–I’m with you, I don’t think the government/state should be doing the means testing. However, I think if you _do_ have a state run healthcare system, that’s where you end up. When the lights are on, no one’s home, and said situation is not going to change short of a guy who just came off turning some water into wine walking into the room, the taxpayer should not be on the hook for 20+ years of life support.
Alasdair–I meant the Heinlein belief that war should not be entered into outside of a democratic vote, with the “yes” crowd having to deliver their filled out form at the nearest recruiting station. While I subscribe to that belief philosophically, I also understand why the Founding Fathers did _not_ do that.
As to MAD–I think it’s actually perfectly fine as long as you’re dealing with someone who isn’t a sociopath or religious fanatic. If your opponent thinks vaporization = free trip to heaven/paradise/elysium then, well, you might want to develop a robust first strike capability.
Lastly, as I always say about people who state “isolationism isn’t realistic”–if we had a Tunguska level event over Chicago tomorrow or New Madrid slipped, you telling me we’re still engaged as thoroughly worldwide as we are now? Really? Because I see an American electorate thoroughly punishing a party that decided to keep pouring money into Mesopatamia after something so devastating here. (“Oh, that will never happen…” “Yeah, because we’ve got a miraculous ‘Great Disaster Shield’ over CONUS.”) The point is, it’s realistic–it just doesn’t serve either party’s needs at this time.
Gharie, I think I missed a step, how are communities and governments separate. Government is the community and the other way around.
dcl, a couple of comments on an otherwise fair post:
This is a fair position, but the devil is in the details — as in, what constitutes a “basic level of care”? If catastrophic care (and, arguably, some level of preventive care) is covered by universal risk pools, while day-to-day health costs are either out-of-pocket or part of some other add-on form of consumer insurance, that is one thing. The aspects of health care that are like life insurance or fire insurance (statistical certainties for insurance companies, but fairly random and unlucky occurrences for policyholders) — that is fair to insure at as universal a level as possible. But that’s not what Obama and the Democrats are doing; they are trying to take a fairly well-rounded HMO or PPO level of insurance and make that as universally available as possible by regulatory fiat and indirect price caps. The fundamental flaw in their approach is they make no attempt to fix the third-party payer aspect of the health care system, and until that is dealt with, costs will continue to skyrocket unless otherwise capped by some form of rationing (read: death panels).
A comforting statement that generates all sorts of bewilderment since honest observation of the world around us teaches that government is almost never more efficient than the private sector. And sure enough, that’s because you’re making an objectively false claim.
Even if what you were saying is true and Medicare is efficient, why is it going bankrupt according to its administrative guardians who do the actuarial accounting? How can you possibly support something that is supposedly efficient but fiscally unsustainable given modern demographics? Furthermore, why did Democrats propose major cuts to Medicare (to you and other deluded liberals, a model of efficiency) in order to help fund Obamacare? Perhaps you should sit down sometime and contemplate deeply why the [w]hole here is not the sum of its parts.
Again, sounds great in theory, but in daily observation this is complete rubbish. If the difference was simply profit margins, why not cede much of government’s current role to non-profit enterprises?
Second, you miss the real reason the private sector is superior to the public: dynamism. Inefficient enterprises that are inefficient and not competitive tend to grow stale and produce less profit, and are overtaken by firms who are more efficient and innovative. “Creative destruction” ensures capital is allocated effectively and efficiently to produce ever improving economic results. Government cannot emulate this dynamism and innovation for a variety of structural reasons, some justifiable and proper (e.g. the checks and balances of the political system slow things down immensely), others not so (public sector unions make for incredibly inflexible labor markets).
In the end, government ought to do what is constitutionally required — no more and no less. And for the most part, it will fail to do even that very efficiently (see: the Department of Defense and NASA). As a general rule, we are better off having the government skim off the top of industry’s profits, than having government replace industry. Aside from the economic case for this statement being solid (witness China’s capitalist evolution over the past thirty years, or the revitalization of British industry after Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation and union-busting efforts), the political harms inherent in government involvement in the economy are great and exponentially increase the opportunities for corruption, malfeasance, and favoritism. As an example, while oil industry lobbying of Congress may be distasteful, I can assure you that government control of oil production would result in vastly more destructive ills directly inimical to the heart of our representative democracy than any PAC or industry association — witness Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most recently in the news, Ecuador.
Gharie, I think I missed a step, how are communities and governments separate. Government is the community and the other way around.
You’re kidding right?
The federal government has NOTHING to do with community. It overrules community. (usually in the name of our own good)
Communities are groups of people voluntarily coming together to take care of each other. Government is force and mandate.
Bull $#*( gahrie, I don’t know what in the hell you are smoking, but what you identify as the purpose of community is the purpose of government. From the local micro level all the way up to the national and international levels. Governments certainly can do a lot of stupid, be abusive, have lots of other problems, but they are, at the root level communities, as in the social contract, as in… Never mind.
There is nothing voluntary about government. Government is force. Government is the enemy of the people. That’s why the Founders set up a LIMITED government with LIMITED ENUMERATED POWERS .
Our current form of government is EXACTLY what the Founders were afraid of.
Even King George didn’t say we HAD to buy the tea, just that we could only buy it from one company and pay a tax if we wanted to.
gahrie – the d-list folk (David K, dcl, et al) are devout believers in (with apologies to Animal Farm)
Private Monopoly Bad ! Government Monopoly Good !
The sad thing is that they seem to truly believe as a matter of faith that Medicare delivers medical care more effectively than the private sector can (and probably that the VA delivers medical care more effectively than the private sector can) …
Actually I don’t believe that at all Alasdair, but thanks for demonstrating once again that you are an idiot.
I have stated on multiple occasions that I do not support government ONLY health care. What I do think we should have is regulation on the health care industry (and the financial industry) as well as a government run, member funded health care option so as to provide actual competition for health care. If private run health care is so much more efficient/better than the marketplace will demonstrate it. Personally i think that non-profit health care co-ops are the way to go (and I’m lucky enough to belong to one of the few in the U.S.)
David, I find it far more constructive to an interesting debate to ignore lunatics.
Gahrie, you are making philosophical arguments about the nature of governments and communities. Which is fine, and very interesting. And really is a wonderful discussion. But that isn’t really the point here. But at the root level we, you me, David, Brendan, etc. We are The Government. We are a community also. You can dislike the actions carried out by a government, but that doesn’t make it not a community. You are simply applying different connotations to words that, especially given our system of government, are basically synonyms. And saying all is well when one connotation does it but when the other connotation does it it’s bad. And that simply doesn’t make any sense.
Short example, a subdivision of houses. Is a small community. It is also a micro government. It carries out certain actions, neighborhood watch, for the benefit of the community. Or it does really stupid annoying crap if it is an HOA that has superiority complex.
Though the actions of government can indeed be stupid, government in and of itself isn’t by definition evil. I know the Ronald applied brain bleach to get people to believe that, but he was and is wrong. And that mentality has lead to a whole bunch of other problems.
As for transgressions on enumerated powers, three words: George W. Bush. So lets not go there unless we want to have a shit show from Alasdair okay.
You can dislike the actions carried out by a government, but that doesn’t make it not a community. You are simply applying different connotations to words that…are basically synonyms
Actually, I sort of agree with Gahrie here, though I doubt I’d go quite to the same extreme. I’m glad you brought up the example of the HOA, dcl, since I think that perfectly illustrates why a government may not act like a community.
Like many of you, my family belongs to a HOA, to which we pay a small annual fee, in exchange for maintenance of the common areas in our neighborhood, access to the clubhouse, and the like. IOW, the HOA exists to facilitate contractual consideration, or said differently, all members of the neighborhood throw in the same amount of money to the HOA in exchange for the maintenance of the public good. There may be blowhards on my HOA, though I don’t follow it all that closely to know.
Suppose that a member of my HOA’s BOD noticed that families over on Elm Street were beginning to fall on difficult times. This board member, call him Joe the Plumber, takes a lot of satisfaction from being on the board, so he cuts the fee for the Elm Street folks in half, while increasing by 10% the amount that all the other community members pay. This makes the folks on Elm Street very happy and paves the way for all of them to vote for Joe the Plumber, thus all but ensuring his constant re-election to the BOD, since, while the non-Elm Street members grumble about having to pay more, none are harmed enough actually to revolt against Joe and the rest of the gasbags.
If a community exists for the sake of facilitating contractual consideration among its members, then the hypothetical HOA was acting as a community at the beginning of this example. However, once Joe and the rest co-opt the process, helping some members (for the protection of their roles), is it right still to call it a community?
I may have chosen to give more for the support of the folks on Elm Street, perhaps out of charitable intent or even because blight on Elm Street hurts my home value…but I didn’t put that in the thought experiment. If those conditions don’t hold, then my consideration has doubtlessly been harmed by the change in the HOA, at which point it is no longer a community (acting to facilitate my consideration) – it is now a government (compelling me to act against my interest by force).
Jazz, you are arguing connotations of the words. Government has been given a bad connotation by “Saint Ronald” but government or Government is not inherently the enemy, nor is it inherently evil, nor is it inherently the problem. Government is inherently us. Government is what we make of it as a community.
Government is inherently us
Its an interesting question. In the HOA example of #32, once the aspirational BOD members recalculate the fee structure, is the HOA still…”me”? Though I dislike the direction the group has moved, and though the leadership is doing so for self-interest that is not matched with my interest (we know this because it is my thought experiment), I am still compelled to play along…unless I vote the bums out.
Which is where the question gets interesting. On a pure philosophical level, if Joe the Plumber is abusing his power by shuttling consideration to Elm Street at my expense, I am obliged to get rid of him. If I don’t, bad on me, which certainly jibes with my conservativish view of the world.
What will the campaign to dump Joe look like? “Screw the Elm Street people, vote out Joe!” That’s more or less what I’m saying, though it could require some delicate messaging. If the fee upcharge doesn’t hit me *that* hard, I may not care enough to try.
In conclusion, the assumption that government serves my consideration interests equally as well as a community – such that the two are indistinguishable – rests on at least two shaky assumptions: 1) Government acting against my interests is salient enough for me to do something about it, and 2) Fighting back against government abuses does not bring about unpleasant externalities.
I’d argue that the two conditions typically hold in a community; the operations of a community are almost always germane to my interests, and, second, I always have enough status in a community to be comfortable speaking up for my interests.
(In the HOA example, the bigger the association, the less likely people will feel comfortable mobilizing against favoritism for Elm Street. This is another distinction between government and a community that works to government’s disadvantage: government = big, so can disregard your interests, community = small, close to your interest. Hopefully your HOA is small enough that you can feel like you have some say in how the common money is spent).
As a counter-example to the first condition in government, the examples are numerous – and all are probably on John McCain’s website – but one that comes to mind is farm subsidies. Farm subsidies harm my interests, but not enough for me to do anything about it.
One could argue that vast swaths of the entitlement state could be examples of the second point. I’m tempted to go downtown and hold up a sign that says “Stop giving away so damn much free money, gummint!”, but you know there’s a chance that a future employer might be walking by at that moment, so the odds of me expressing my views on such matters are quite small indeed.
And actually, thanks to this “government” v. “community” conversation, I finally understand the appeal of Sarah Palin, and specifically her appeal to Tea Partiers.
I’ve written here and elsewhere at length about how insane it seems for Palin to be the poster-child of the Tea Partiers. How can someone whose two signature political acts (the sports stadium in Wasilla and the windfall profit tax in Juneau) are so egregiously financially irresponsible be the spokesperson for a group outraged at government financial irresponsibility?
And yet, one can easily imagine that a citizen of Wasilla wouldn’t really know from public debt (apparently, before Palin’s stadium, they never had any!) Being small town, they would know the feeling of how much it sucked to have to go to the next town to play in a nice arena – so in a “community” sense, they wanted the arena, and maybe they even hated “government” for denying it (which, btw, could be an example of government acting against community for good reason, e.g. the community doesn’t understand the concept of why debt sucks).
The windfall profit tax makes you shudder, but you have to remember that Alaskans have long since been accustomed to feeding at the public trough of annual transfer payments. That Palin made the transfer payment bigger than ever, by socking a big tax on mean old big oil, from a ‘community’ perspective may make her something of a heroine…even if, again, you side with government v. community in this hypothetical.
Perhaps the real animation of the Tea Party movement is too much government, too little community. In which case Palin would be a natural, for she is arguably the embodiment of government as ‘community’.
Government as community organizing, if the concept hasn’t been taken already.
Jazz #35 – the HOA example is a good one …
While you have your own opinions about what makes Sarah Palin respected, for some of us it is that she took on corruption (in her own party) – in your HOA example, those who gave favoritism to Elm Street – and rooted a bunch of it out … and I think you’ll find that that sort of thing matters much more to Tea Partiers than stadia or windfall profits taxes … (beware projection – it may well apply to both of us) …
A beautiful riposte that should be cited each and every time Brendan or someone else on this blog cites Andrew Sullivan: