"What sorts of answers do you have?" Ignore the bitch. (0.00 / 0)

Don't elevate her status by paying attention to every fart she makes. Leave that to the gossip media, pls.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:17:20 PM UTC

I'd suggest we avoid referring to her as bitch (4.00 / 4)

I find it a wholly unconstructive term for women no matter their vileness.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:43:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a point. So, ignore the jerk! (0.00 / 0)

Uh, no, doesn't sounds good, either.
Hmm, ignore the obnoxious person?
Damn, but that's so lame!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:48:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can use a gender-neutral pejorative (4.00 / 1)

Dipshit.
Moron.
Capitalist running-dog.

---

by: Pesto @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:54:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know (0.00 / 0)

Part of what gives 'bitch' (and whore, slut, other women-specific insults) its power is its DISempowerment of women and enactment of stereotype.  It's kinda hateful, though you wouldn't know it with how it's thrown around these days.

On the other hand, what the hell do I know, language changes all the time, I could be off-base.

Maybe asshole, fuckface, tyrant?  Something that gets at her evil evil charisma?

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:56:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But isn't it interesting how female slurs are used to revile males, too,... (0.00 / 0)

...but almost never the other way round? Would anybody denigrate Palin by calling her a dick, for instance? Strangely, this somehow is not an "acceptable" smear, and it sounds ridiculous to our ears.

Well, the more the world changes, the more it stays the same: Women get no respect!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:05:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Details, Details... (0.00 / 0)

"Jerk" is a male slur that's increasingly used to describe women.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:54:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely (0.00 / 0)

That's why we gotta buck the patriarchy.  For our (White males) sakes as well as everyone else's.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:23:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm just wondering… (4.00 / 1)

...if the President is smoking more? You know how some folks look like they could really use a cigarette?

There's this odd paradox: Sometimes it seems as if discourse becomes more reality-based when times are tough (example: campaign season 2008), when actually, the tougher times are, the easier it seems to be to circulate misleading information (example: campaign season 2008).

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:50:54 PM UTC

If I Read You Right, Then... (4.00 / 1)

in the sense that tough times bring out the best and the worst in people, it makes perfect sense.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 13:30:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you believe Obama supporters are delusional? (0.00 / 0)

Here's where you lost me:

But, how different are Obama supporters, given the growing number and degree of disconnects between his campaign promises (vague as his main themes were) and what he's delivering? [Note: I'm not saying they're the same. I'm asking a serious question here. There are differences, but how much difference do those differences make?]

It does sound like you're comparing Obama supporters to Palin supporters. I don't find Obama supporters delusional. I find that they're disappointed in the outcome of the healthcare debate, Afghanistan, and appointees like Geithner.  And, make no mistake, these issues are dispiriting.

But, I also have no patience for the criticism that Obama supporters are high on Hopium, drank the koolaide, etc.  I could go through dozens of things that Bush did, of which Obama is unlikely to do.  Let's start with this one: Bush promised to veto any bill which gave voting rights for DC, my home.  Obama promised not to veto such a bill.

I'll add a second issue.  I was unemployed at a point during the Bush administration.  No job, no healthcare.  What I had to look forward to was the stimulus created by Bush's tax cuts.  In other words, not much. As far as healthcare goes, nada.

I just don't see your comparison of Palin and Obama supporters.

---

by: AltHippo @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:22:57 PM UTC

It's Pretty Simple, Really (4.00 / 6)

Comparing doesn't mean equating.  It means comparing.

While it's obvious that Obama is better than Bush on a slew of important, but comparatively secondary issues, the question on the big issues ought to be, "If Bush had tried to do this, would we have opposed him or supported him?"

So, on healthcare, if Bush had tried to implement an individual mandate (which Obama campaigned against) with no public option (which Obama campaigned for), thereby giving the insurance companies tens of millions of new customers, would we have opposed him or supported him?

On the financial crisis, if Bush had given the big banks virtually limitless amounts of cash, refused to break up those "too big to fail," made no serious effort to help homeowners instead, and postured occasionally with bouts of tough talk, would we have opposed him or supported him?

Etc.

At a very basic level, failing to key into these sorts of questions is a form of delusion.

Please remember, Clinton got NAFTA passed at a time when Bush's father couldn't.  Will Obama, likewise, get Social Security and Medicare drastically slashed while Bush Jr. couldn't?

We are at a very perilous point not just in our history, but world history.  We could be marching into intentional global catastrophe within just a few decades.  Rather than frankly acknowledge this situation, and clearly face the problems as they are, Obama seeks "bipartisan agreement" with the very people who've helped create most of this mess, and in the process necessarily derails efforts to understand what is wrong, how it is wrong, and why it is wrong.  He calls it "looking forward, rather than looking back."

And that is itself fundamentally delusional.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a young person who supported Obama without thinking about it too much (4.00 / 4)

Let me tell you that the comparisons are chilling.

I've gotten a lot more perceptive and critical since the summer (when my own personal crusade, green jobs, took a hit with the sacking of Van Jones), but I'll admit that I saw a bit of how I behaved, and how my friends did.  And we were all fairly well educated 'political' college students.

The phenomenon shown above is not siloed in one party.  I do think Obamanians are coming around faster than Palinites would.

But the two of them are, I think, models for the 'new politician'.  They're selling a character, as Naomi Klein would put it, a brand.  You can put WHATEVER you want into them and they'll make it 'true'.

How could someone advocating real policies even hope to compete with that?  I would expect others to try and replicate the unprecedented successes of the Obama and Palin phenomenons in the future.

Obama and Palin realize a fundamental truth of our media-saturated age, that what people are really lacking is a single entity they can trust.  Study after study has demonstrated how people are losing faith and have been for years in civic societies, government, corporations, and religious institutions.  There is too much out there, and too much access to know what to believe.  We believed in Obama because we NEEDED something to believe in, and he was willing to give it to us for the duration of the campaign.  Palin represents the same, but for people one the other side.

It's mini-authoritarian really, the degree to which supporters of each are supporters because they trust the infallibility of their leader without really looking at the substance behind them (not all obviously, plenty expected what we're getting and are okay with it).  My only hope is that Obama supporters are quicker to realize how unsustainable such a trust of authority turns out to be.

But we ignore the reasons behind their success at our peril.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This makes a lot of sense to me (4.00 / 1)

Study after study has demonstrated how people are losing faith and have been for years in civic societies, government, corporations, and religious institutions.  There is too much out there, and too much access to know what to believe.  We believed in Obama because we NEEDED something to believe in, and he was willing to give it to us for the duration of the campaign.  Palin represents the same, but for people one the other side.

Given the massive problems our society faces, it's frankly pretty irrational to believe that the current political system will rise to the challenge.  So people have 2 options, neither of which is easy:

1) Start to think about replacing our current systems of government and authority with something that might actually work;

2) Contort themselves into a position that allows them to believe in the current system's ability to address our problems.

Almost everyone picks #2, all over the political spectrum.  Even the Teabaggers basically just want "their" person in charge of the status quo.

---

by: Pesto @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:59:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

(3) Think about working outside the system now while working toward (1) (4.00 / 3)

Aka "community organizing."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:57:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rebuilding Trust (4.00 / 2)

One key to rebuilding trust is the essence of successful community organizing--it's building trust in ourselves, our neighbors and our communities.  It's much easier to trust those we can relate to directly, particularly as equals.

So a fundamental challenge we now face is how can we use the tools of online communication to build community trust--both online and off.

There is one fundamental difference between Obama and Palin.  Palin was inherently dishonest. Her "solutions" were bogus from day zero.  Obama, OTOH, was selling something that though vague contained a fairly decent admixture of truth, so that people such as yourself and your friends were not entirely wrong--and even I, who was quite critical, had hoped that reality would force him in a more progressive direction.

What this means is that it is not impossible in principle to market progressive policies successfully and mean it.  The problem is simply that raising big bucks from big donors makes that scenario increasingly unlikely.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:51:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spot on (4.00 / 2)

Not only would community organizing (and that same sort of spirit applied on-line) help build trust, but it would also build power. Simply winning election won't do it.

I believe that progressive policies (real progressive policies, not warmed over third way-ism) can be used to mobilize people at the grassroots level. What they can't do is be the basis of PR driven politics which requires big money donors.

The other piece of the puzzle is this - it should be clear by now that major Democratic constituencies like labor or gay and reproductive rights groups will not be able to achieve much with existing strategies.  If they were to turn their resources towards organizing - especially organizing broadly for progressive politics not just issue by issue - that would be change I could believe in. The models are there, and they are proven. But will they be embraced?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:23:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

I've started taking a more direct approach in talking to my friends, families, and loved ones in terms of letting them know what's going on and more importantly, what they can do.  People need to feel empowered before they're going to do anything.  Give them little stuff (call your congressperson) and then build them up to bigger stuff.

What this means is that it is not impossible in principle to market progressive policies successfully and mean it.  The problem is simply that raising big bucks from big donors makes that scenario increasingly unlikely.

The above is what gives me hope that things are ultimately achievable.  People can be mobilized, we just need to ensure that the mobilizers in fact believe what they themselves are saying, and are strategic enough to know how to go about doing it.

Let's also pray that Obama doesn't turn off disappointed people like myself, who feel pressures to tune out every day.  I don't blame people for tuning out (how can you expect people to be a progressive political junkie, aka a masochist), but I also don't have any expectation that we're going to get anywhere if people don't tune in.  It goes back to the above point that you need to give people little stuff to start off and build them up.

Aka community organizing.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:29:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At our peril (4.00 / 3)

Most middle class Americans don't yet realize that there is a boot on their neck. They don't want to wake up to the reality that they "lost the class war." Hence the teabaggers who are angry about an encroaching counter reality threatening to burst their bubble and their faith in a benevolent, paternalistic/authoritarian America. So they lash out at those they have been taught to distrust or hate, in order to preserve the illusion just a little longer. Waking up to our own fears about the Obama Administration is somewhat similar but it happens much faster and more naturally from and anti-authoritarian impulse. We can deal with the teabaggers but it is the corporate overlords that we are really up against and most of us are dependant on them in one way or another.

The wealthy are living in a parallel illusion, thinking that they are stewards of the American Dream, since obviously they got theirs and, somehow, their wealth is propping up everyone else. It's a very tidy and easy to maintain illusion when you never venture out of your gated golf course communities, yacht clubs, ski resorts and Washington DC. The world is flat for everybody else, just not for them. The wealthy can't wake up without first developing a social conscience and that they are loathe to do, since it requires facing an increasingly grotesque condition evolving in the lower segments of society.

The collapse of the American Exceptionalism ideology is still in progress. As it collapses, those that are unwilling to share a common reality--where problems can be identified and solved--will become very dangerous to our society.  

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure this is true (4.00 / 2)

Most middle class Americans don't yet realize that there is a boot on their neck.

I actually think that most middle class Americans know they are losing ground, and have known it for quite some time. They see that politicians and Wall Street elites seem to be exploiting the very situations that lead them to feel increasingly insecure and lacking in opportunities. And they have felt this way for some time, even while the corporate media told them the economy and the nation were doing great.

The problem is that the Republican officials pretend to care about these things, and at least offer some symbolic remedies (in the form of scape goats,) while Democratic officials have largely ignored these problems and offered no explanations or remedies. What they do offer is targeted to the very groups that Republicans demonize - see the health care "bill" where most of the money is going to subsidies (which will enrich insurance companies) for those who cannot afford it and Medicaid - as opposed to broad based universal programs. (This is what Greenwald was talking about here.) This sort of politics helps create the very divisions that Republicans exploit. Despite this, more solidaristic univeralist approaches remain very popular, enjoying broad support even among independents and Republicans.

It's an old social science saw that a condition cannot become a problem until there is some solution attached to it - meaning that some state of affairs will not mobilize people to act unless they can make sense of that state of affairs and see some way for government to address it. That is what is lacking - it is a failure of elites and activists, not of the population.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:06:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another dynamic is in here, too (4.00 / 2)

Glenn Greenwald recently had an excellent comment on the similarities between Tea Baggers and progressives, that (in essence) both reject the corporate takeover of our government over the past three decades. How they reject is different, of course. But the awareness that giant corporations have gone too far, that is shared. Greenwald's piece is here, The underlying divisions in the healthcare debate.

Sarah Palin and Obama are perfect politicians, in their way, for a government of corporations and by corporations and for corporations. And not Main Street businesses, mind you, rather giant insurance companies, banks, oil companies, and any economic interest that can set and buy government policy. If you buy that is what is going on, then you want politicians who are brand. You want voters to focus on the shiny stuff and ignore what goes on behind the curtains once elections are over. And, intentional or not, a big media that focuses on personality and horse races is ready-made for corporate government.

The problem is that excess of any kind inevitably collapses. You can't hand massive tax breaks to the wealthiest one half of one percent over many decades without hurting the middle class. Same for free trade agreements that are more about reducing costs for giant corporations than trade that supports worker wages, the environment, cultures, and other important aspects of any trade deal. Eventually, reality bites people in the ass.

Personally, I'm struck most how our government focuses on the needs of the top one percent as it ignores the needs of the remaining ninety-nine percent. I expect power to take care of power, but I also expect interest groups can foment large changes here and there. That latter bit has not happened in a long time, however.

What I would like to see here at Open Left, because people are so engaged, so thoughtful, and bring so much based on their experiences, I would like to see us debate here how we get out of this mess over the next few decades. How do we convert or neutralize Obama, for example? What messages should progressives (and sane people, of any party, for that matter) push in the media for people like Sirota, Dean, Sanders, Brown to push? And how do we shame politicians who would vote for an unfunded mandate, a massive government-directed transfer of wealth to private corporations? And how do we change finance reform to remove the power of corporations while still meeting any constitutional free speech requirements? And, once you have messages and plans, how do you reach the millions of Americans who have day jobs, who struggle to get by every day, people who want to be informed but mostly rely on headlines, local news, and friends?

Progressives appear to have all the pieces. What's missing seems to be a plan, an agenda, or at least a list of actions people can work on. I'd like to move from kvetching to debating and action.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:01:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One central thing we need to do (4.00 / 2)

and its something that both Greenwald and Kilgore noted, is to actually talk about ideology - to make it explicit. I suspect this means less energy on personalities and character, and less discussion of motives - of both those involved in the discussion and the objects of our discussions. The divisions that Greenwald talked about are real.

There has been discussion of these issues here. But my impression is that while front pagers and commenters make these issues explicit on occasion, when we are talking about other more particular issues these fault lines become obscured.

Ideological differences need to be part of the day to day discussions. That will not solve the problems you mention - but it will improve our chances of addressing them in a meaningful way.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:31:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True, Sort Of, But... (4.00 / 1)

Glenn Greenwald recently had an excellent comment on the similarities between Tea Baggers and progressives, that (in essence) both reject the corporate takeover of our government over the past three decades. How they reject is different, of course. But the awareness that giant corporations have gone too far, that is shared.

Teabaggers chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill!" are not quite as anti-corporate as some would have you believe.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:44:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

And that was one point of difference Greenwald has with the original New Republic article he responded to. The New Republic piece argued these differences could not be reconciled. Greenwald believes they differences are less than one would think.

Also, he points out that the Tea Baggers are supported by the corporations they ostensibly rail against (indirectly, of course, it's the idea of a big faceless unaccountable entity controlling your life and restricting your freedom: for righties, it's the government, for lefties, it's giant corporations). Greenwald says it far better, of course.

Personally, I find Palin fascinating. I think she is purely in it for herself, for the attention, for the rush of being important. I don't see her as lasting very long in any situation once it becomes hard work and requires significant commitment.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 02:52:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

With all the above.

But I think that this, in particular, needs stressing just now: The NeoLib Demowonk "answers" are their very own delusional reality, as out of touch in their own way as Palin's "Drill, Baby, Drill!"  Real bipartisanship was/is quite possible by going for the universalist approaches you speak of--as I've pointed out numerous times via refernces to GSS data.

The assumption is always that such are more "radical" than the NeoLib approach and thus would have much less popular support.  But that, of course, is the fundamental lie of neoliberal politics.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:32:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "boot on the neck" (4.00 / 1)

phrase is meant to say, most in the American middle class are not aware of how hard the coming push-down is going to be. (That is my opinion.) I agree, there already exists a general anxiety, or a vague sense of dread, as we watch our prosperity, such as it is, whittled away. I think most Americans don't really understand why this is happening.

That is what is lacking - it is a failure of elites and activists, not of the population.

I partly agree with this. Activists and elites can help to expose the underlying mechanisms of this economic meltdown and the corporate piracy. It is extremely important. Frankly, the magnitude of these problems continues to be a revelation to me and I consider myself relatively well informed.

But if for what ever reason, the public remains insulated or distracted from reality, then they can actually be used to work against their own (our) interests. I doubt that you could sit down with a teabagger and enlighten them in any way, no matter how much time you spend. Their politics and psychology are ossified into a single pathological condition. You would have to 'wipe' them. Hopefully the elites and activist can reach the less sever cases and this is your point.

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:39:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (4.00 / 3)

As for sitting down with anyone, I wouldn't suggest starting with the teabaggers - I do think there are plenty of easier cases. I also think they are a relatively small group of people.  

But I think things are more malleable than you seem to - their positions, like all of us, are a product of politics. All we know now is that given this set of political conditions, this group of people manifests in this fashion. Remember too that many of them are being organized by conservative activists who make use of existing community level networks - their position is not organic.

This piece makes the point fairly well:

My Grandmother Takes a Stand for Gay Marriage in Church Despite Being a Glenn Beck Follower.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:47:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality based (4.00 / 7)

Politics is always a struggle over what things mean. Even the most elaborate and incestuous ideologies claim to represent reality, no matter that they treat it as a set of Platonic abstractions unrecognizable to any of us not of the mandarin class. Look, for example, at Obama's Nobel acceptance speech (as I would parse it:)

1. I'm not Gandhi. I'm responsible for a country full of people who always have to come first, not matter what or who stands in the way. That's only natural, and should excuse our atrocities, as opposed to theirs. (They, of course, being unspecified.)

2. If people don't want war, they shouldn't piss us off. When they do, war is what they should expect. It's a simple matter of justice (and superior firepower.)

3. Someone has to run the world, so it might as well be my country. Anybody who has a problem with that doesn't understand how reality works, and ignores the fact that we've been far nicer about keeping the baser aspects of human nature from wrecking our plans than any previous country with pretensions to world dominance. Corollary: We saved all your asses seventy years ago, and don't you forget it. Afterthought: We're not like them. We don't want anything from you. That's the reality I'm here to defend.

Small wonder that this sort of thing leaves the bulk of the world's population scratching its collective head, and wondering if the Norwegians have finally gone as mad as the rest of us. And yet there's hardly a news source, or pundit bureau or think tank which didn't tout this speech as a refreshing and welcome return to realism in our foreign policy after the dangerous delusions of the Bush years.

We may ask what they're smoking, but in truth, we already know. We also know that if we want to let reality be reality again, we've still got a helluva fight on our hands.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:15:50 PM UTC

I admit I've never read Niebuhr (0.00 / 0)

but all the people who claim to love him seem to use him to justify shrugging their shoulders at injustice and war and saying, "Ennh, what are you gonna do?  Life sucks, and someone's got to be wearing the boot that's kicking asses.  Might as well be us."

Am I missing something there?

---

by: Pesto @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:29:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Beauty and the beast (4.00 / 3)

I apologize that this isn't directly responsive to your question, but references of this kind to Niebuhr always put me in mind of arguments in support of authority -- religious ones almost invariably -- and the excellent rebuttals to them which so impressed me when I first read the early philosophers of the Enlightenment.

Claims to being appointed-by-God-to-keep-order-as-He-would-define-order are still with us, of course, however much they've donned a modernist disguise, free of any direct references to the Deity. So also are denials of those claims. Paul has done a lot of work here, for example, to debunk the idea that there's a reality known only to the powerful, that their power, descended from divine dispensation or not, proves their wisdom, and that we should just STFU and go along.

If I had to boil it down, it seems to me that conservatives, or authoritarians, if you prefer, are concerned first and foremost with suppressing the beast within us, while liberals think of this little light of mine, and imagine a world where a lot of conscious effort could be devoted to developing the better angels of our nature.

There's some truth in both formulations, of course, but the idea of some truth always seems to wind up being anathema to those among us who profit from extremism and confusion. Everybody -- even OpenLeftists -- hates a philosopher, and loves a man of action. It's a pity.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:14:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Nailed It (4.00 / 2)

On sale now: The Philosophers' X-Ray Specs.

Not responsible for side-effects, which may include splitting headaches, nasuea and sickness unto death.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:02:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truth Squads + elite debate challenges + ... (4.00 / 1)

To raise the level of public discourse, I suggest the following, which could be accomplished in the near term. Longer term, we need to replace the current media by offering a more interesting alternative, that still supplies the "fluff" of our current TV. People could still watch a show like "Desperate Housewives", but the commericials would be replaced by un-commercials, where people would be pointed in directions outside their provincial mindspace.

For what could be done in the shorter term:

Truth Squads - follow prominent individuals around who are either lying overtly, or lying by omission, or giving a very poor frame to the eviscerated 'debate', and challenge them with fact. So, truth squads would have challenged prominent Republicans who were spouting off about pulling the plug on Granny, but also Obama for not offering up single payer and other means for not just cost containment, but cost decrease of medical care down to European levels

Elite Debate Challenges - Gore challenged Palin to a debate, recently, and she ducked. I wish he would chase her around the country, so she can duck repeatedly, thus giving her followers a chance to realize that she's a coward. The question will dawn on at least some of them - "What exactly is she afraid of?". I also suggested that Obama challenge Republican Congress critters who were going on about death panels.

Variegated Truth Commission Consisting of Smarties - This woud have smarties from various ideological persuasions, who would jointly weigh in on prominent claims and issues. There really is such a thing as a conservative who isn't as ignorant as the Sarah Palin followers you see in this video. E.g., my uncle is very conservative, and I've never heard him spout mindless talking points like the Sarah Palin devotees. With degrees in physics and electrical engineering, he's no dummy, and has a lifelong interest in philosophy, to boot. Likewise, such a truth commission would pass on the Bill O'Reilly's of this world, and look for smart, non-blowhards of the sort that write for American Conservative Magazine, when they're staffing their smarty conservative contingent.

Such a commission would allow, encourage, and maybe demand 2nd and 3rd rounds of criticism of other members' writings on the topic. That would be not only for clarification, but also to identify falsehoods, distorted truths, unecessarily confining framing, etc. Ultimately, disagreements should come down to differing values and ideological dispositions - 'differing  facts' is a sign that somebody is making stuff up. When somebody has made an error of fact or logic, they should own up to it. Perhaps valuable enough to tolerate

Because of the complexity of society, we really need pools of such individuals who can take the time to delve deeply into the subjects that they will be called upon to write and argue about.

Since a lot of Americans don't read, a lively video version of the written round-table debates could be produced, preferably something with the production values and narrative flow of 'Frontline'. Like it or not, to get a lot of Americans to think, you will have to simultaneously entertain them.

(BTW, yesterday Gary Null said that the progressiveradionetwork.com will be starting up a slew of new shows. One of them will give an opportunity for Greens, libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc., to have an ongoing forum on the airwaves. I got the impression that they'd be allowed to discuss and debate issues on the same shows, not just discretely.)

No Wing Talking Heads - You need somebody with a talent for provocatively, verbally entertaining the masses. The O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's, etc., are talented in this regard, otherwise they wouldn't have an audience. The point of the no-wing dudes is to go after all the lies and hypocrisy in our government, without regard to whether the people they criticize have a D or R after their name, or are favored by citizens with one ideology or another. A no wing talking head would just as eagerly tear into the former Bush Administration for their pathological lying as it would tear into Obama for his lies. Ralph Nader couldn't perform this function, not because he's not honest or smart enough, but because he's not entertaining enough. (No knock on Nader is implicit in that statement, whatsoever.)

To make the show provocative, I could even tolerate some distortion, such as a constant talking point of "There's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans". Guys like Limbaugh 'adjust' the facts or 'logic' to fit their narratives. In my mind, that makes them fundamentally dishonest. So, I'm sort of suggesting something dishonest, but one might justify it along the lines of an antidote for a particular poison being another poison. If you listen to either Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes, you realized that you're basically listening to a cheer leader for opposing sides. Destroying dumbed-down framing like "two side of every issue" (when there could easily be 10 'sides' on an issue) is valuable goal, maybe valuable enough to tolerate some distortion.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:06:19 PM UTC

"We are all leaders here" (4.00 / 3)

How similar is this to how people relate to media figures in general--from newscasters to actors that people routinely confuse with the characters they play? ("She makes me proud to be a woman & she's strong." Or: "She stands for what America is." [Promted to explain:] "Freedom. Liberty. The right to speak.")

How true - this attitude is simply not consistent with a real, popular movement for change (or, for that matter, with democracy). You might mobilize many people to support you in some narrow fashion with these sort of personality based politics, but that is not what we need.  

And further - you are correct that this is not simply a problem of our politics, but our society. Even those who tune out politics entirely are bombarded with messages that take this perspective for granted - in sports, for example, or entertainment. This shows how difficult the road ahead is - we are not just talking about changing how people relate to politics, we are talking about how they relate to the world.

That said, I suspect that it does take this constant bombardment to get people to take this perspective for granted. i don't believe it comes naturally.  Combating it begins by insisting that regular people matter, that they are capable, that they deserve to be heard, and that the way to make that happen is by working together to get things done that you can't get done alone.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 18:01:05 PM UTC

Where's Bob Dylan? (4.00 / 2)

The culture aspect of where we are today politically, socially, economically, that fascinates me. In the past eight years alone, there has been as much or more fodder for socially minded musicians, artists, filmmakers, and the rest to tear into. The Dixie Chicks stood up (and paid for it). Bruce Springsteen has done a number of songs. But it all seems marginal in hindsight. There was no mass cultural explosion to the status quo as there was in the Sixties and Seventies. I've been over thirty for many years and people trust me blindly when they should not. 8-)

For almost three decades, Gordon Gecko (sp?) has been the prevailing idea of what it is to be American. In the Seventies, my dad used to give me copies of Forbes magazine and their hagiographies of business leaders to inspire me; reading the latest Forbes makes me realize that most of the biographies they describe are hokum: people who make wealth (a small number of the rich) do so out of a combination of luck and preparation while the vast majority of wealth is inherited by people who had nothing to do with the creation of their wealth. In an way, too, getting rich is all so boring given everything else we can do in this world. Life is way too short. Yet there is not a new paradigm to replace Gecko and the "greed is good" mantra.

I'm waiting to see if we get a new Pete Seeger one of these days. Or Tom Hayden and/or SDS. Or any cultural expression that rips the face off the boring homogenous corporate world we currently inhabit. Who wants to be a widget all their lives? I'm waiting for another Grapes of Wrath, too, that helps people emotionally connect with the majority of people in this country who are working class and middle class. The appearance of a viable counter culture is (will be) a critical part of changing this country for the better. Artists need to stand up, too, and make a difference early and often.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 03:12:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]