What They’re Fighting For
What do the Tea Partiers, the Beck fans, the Palin adorers, the new right-wingers, want? What are they about? What are their principles? Steve Benen, as usual, gets it spot on:
This is about “freedom.”
Well, I’m certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we’re told, not that kind of freedom.
This is about a fight for American “liberties.”
That sounds great, too. Who’s against American “liberties”? But I’m still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we’re told, not those kinds of liberties.
This is about giving Americans who work hard and play by the rules more opportunities.
I’m all for that, too. But would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can’t afford insurance? No, we’re told, not those kinds of opportunities.
This is about the values of the Founding Fathers.
I’m a big fan of the framers’ generation, who created an extraordinary nation. But if we’re honoring their values, would this include their steadfast commitment to the separation of church and state? No, we’re told, not those values.
This is about patriotic Americans willing to make sacrifices for the good of their country.
That sounds reasonable; sacrifices can be honorable. But if we’re talking about patriots willing to sacrifice, does that mean millionaires and billionaires can go back to paying ’90s-era tax rates (you know, when the economy was strong)? No, we’re told, not those kinds of sacrifices.
This is about a public that, at long last, wants to hear the truth from those who speak in their name.
What a great idea. Maybe that means we can hear the truth about global warming? About the fact that health care reform wasn’t a socialized government takeover? About Social Security not going bankrupt? About how every court ruling conservatives don’t like doesn’t necessarily constitute “liberal judicial activism”? No, we’re told, not those truths.
The point is aptly made: this new political movement is not about values or principles, it is about narrowly defined values and principles. Narrowly defined so as to only apply to specific cases they wish to defend, otherwise screw it.
Take the Constitution, for example. They say that they love it, cherish it, defend it, want it to be valued and followed. But, when you get down to the details, only certain parts of it. Only the parts they like. And only in the way that they interpret it to be.
The First Amendment, for example, is vital, the way they read it: freedom of religion, but that part about “establishment,” and what Madison and Jefferson, two of the most significant figures related to the document, called a perfect separation, a wall of separation–screw that, that’s some fascist-liberal myth to attack religion. We’re sure they meant something else. And free speech, that’s what is infringed when people don’t like what we say, that’s what we’re being robbed of when our words have consequences. But only ours–when others say things we don’t like, we feel free to clobber them, because we have the right to speak back. But not them. That’s how it works–I read it right there, on the label.
The Second Amendment, holiest of all holies–this, to many of the Beck-Palin-Tea crowd, is the raison d’etre for the whole bill of rights, and aside from the religion part of the First Amendment, really the only thing worth paying attention to.
The Third Amendment they tend to ignore, not because it’s out of date, but because it shows that an amendment can be out of date, far too proximate to the Second Amendment for comfort.
The Fourth through Eighth Amendments? The bad aftertaste of the first two amendments. Criminal rights? (Never “rights of the accused”–we don’t arrest innocent people!) Best those be swept into the dustbin. Except, of course, until someone we like is found to have committed a crime, then they’re handy for getting them out of jail.
The Ninth Amendment? Dare not speak its name! That harlot of amendments, giver of substance to all kinds of civil rights we do not approve of! Privacy? What an abomination! How would we ever meddle with the rights of others if they have privacy?
And the Tenth Amendment? A handy tool to get issues we approve of handled at the state level when they don’t go our way at the federal level. Except, of course, when the states get uppity, and then the federal government rules all.
Yes, the Constitution and all of its amendments, we love it and believe in it, and damn that communist Obama for saying it’s not a perfect document! It is perfect!
Well, except for those parts we want to amend. Like the 14th Amendment. Oh yeah, and the 16th Amendment, Jesus, let’s not forget to repeal that one. And the 17th–what were they thinking, people voting for senators? And the 22nd, that’s no good when we have presidents like Reagan! For Democrats, we should keep it around, I suppose. And–hey, you know what? Just give us that thing, let us rewrite it to suit our current ideology, OK? Lessee, cross out those ones… add amendments to make sure those courts can’t stop religion from being in schools and courts and government, and to ban flag burning and gay marriage and abortion and income tax, and to ensure God stay in the Pledge and the classroom, an’ oh yeah, let’s not forget to add a whole slew of “Victim’s rights,” ‘coz they don’t have none, and that would really gut the 4th-8th in a way we like. What else is it we don’t like recently? Oh yeah, TARP! No government ownership of private companies. And let’s not forget Bread and Circuses, so how about making it harder to raise taxes, and letting people vote to override Congress because that worked so well with Prop 13, and presidents can’t sign international treaties because, Obama, damn!
Of course, by doing all of this, we’re actually protecting the Constitution, keeping it the way it’s supposed to be, not the way those crypto-fascist commie librulz want us to think it is.
I was going to label the above as “snark,” but then I remembered, it’s not. This is pretty much what they’re saying.
I think there may be some link to the fundamentalist Christian lines of thought in here–the ones that allow a person to say that the Bible is a perfect document, every word from the lips of God himself, and then to proceed to selectively interpret and ignore various parts of that document so it just happens to come out saying what they, in the end, would like it to say. Forget its history, forget the mistranslations, forget the political, historical, and cultural background that got worked into the document.
This is pretty much how conservatives today approach the Constitution: romanticize, edit, ignore, and otherwise re-interpret the original intent; pay attention only to the parts that back up what we agree with, and otherwise ignore, deem moot, or amend the parts which say things we don’t like.
And then stand up and say that we are the champions of the “original” document as we say it is, using the coin of historical reverence to proclaim our mangled version of this document as holy writ that must be honored and obeyed.
As Benen pointed out, it’s not about values. It’s about picking and choosing.
The pro-Constitutional stuff is not about the amendments but about the expansion of Federal power since FDR, or the imposition of the Federal Income Tax.
A pretty strong case can be made that “general welfare” does not extend to the great welfare state we have today, at least as originally intended, even though the Supreme Court has institutionally decided to go along with the other branches’ taxing & spending power grab.
This is the “Constitution in Exile” argument, too, which doesn’t concern itself with spending so much as Federal regulations of intrastate matters.
These people want to basically atomize the Union and create 50 states doing their own thing. This is whacky but makes perfect sense to certain interest groups.
I really didn’t understand the core impetus of the Federalist Society — a lawyer interest group — until taking a real estate class and learning that real estate law differered dramatically from state to state, and then clicked that 50 different legal systems is a pretty good way for lawyers to gain full employment.
Luis, thanks for posting… nice essay by Mr. Benen – I’ve taken the liberty of linking to it as well.
Troy, good point about the lawyer lobby.
Most “Tea Party” members I’ve met have the “Free Speech for me, but not for Thee” type of attitude, that and they seem to discriminate against over half of my friends (The Gay community, Muslims, the poor and uninsured).
And I realize violence of only begets violence, but I just have to restrain myself when I hear them spew lies and hate mongering and calling it “politics”.
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
Ambrose Bierce
This is a very clever essay. It doesn’t come out explicitly and say Conservatives are lying, bigoted hypocrites. It just implies it by twisting words to make them mean what the author wants them to mean. If you take a close look at his examples, every one of them is totally bogus:
“How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we’re told, not that kind of freedom.”
How about the freedom to sell glass beads as diamonds? Freedom doesn’t turn one thing into another and it doesn’t make two men living together a married family, with all the cultural and familial history that this implies.
“Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we’re told, not those kinds of liberties.”
How about the liberty to open a porno shop next to an elementary school? Like the real estate agent said “Location, location, location.” The problem here, as he knows perfectly well, is that this “community center” has been situated as an obvious Islamic victory flag.
“would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can’t afford insurance? No, we’re told, not those kinds of opportunities.”
We have Medicaid for poor families–a program which has bipartisan support. And there is lots of private charity also. The issue is whether *all* health care for *every* American needs to be government run and controlled. Obama says yes. Most Americans say no.
“would this include [the Founder’s] steadfast commitment to the separation of church and state? No, we’re told, not those values.”
Judicial decisions have gone way beyond anything the Founders envisioned in separating Church and State. We’ve gone from non-interference to outright hostility and suppression. Don’t pretend that this kind of ACLU judicial radicalism is what the Founders had in mind.
“does that mean millionaires and billionaires can go back to paying ’90s-era tax rates (you know, when the economy was strong)? No, we’re told, not those kinds of sacrifices.”
Currently, 3% of Americans pay 52% of the taxes. But that’s not enough. If we just squeeze them harder, all our problems will go away. Of course, they won’t be able to invest the money we tax away into new businesses or new jobs, but that’s ok. Higher taxes, the universal liberal cure-all.
“Maybe that means we can hear the truth about global warming? About the fact that health care reform wasn’t a socialized government takeover? About Social Security not going bankrupt? About how every court ruling conservatives don’t like doesn’t necessarily constitute “liberal judicial activism”? No, we’re told, not those truths.”
Ok, Global warming is not scientifically proven, and the solutions offered by liberals (“carbon caps”) are likely to be economically disastrous and ineffective. Nuclear power is probably the best alternative, but most liberals don’t like that either. Health care “reform” is a disaster in Massachusetts (which has a program similar to Obamacare). It’s a massive Government power grab, which will result in most people being on a Government-run health plan with less coverage at higher cost. It’s a total train wreck with almost no redeeming features. Social Security is a massive Ponzi scheme which can’t possibly avoid going bankrupt when the bulk of the Baby Boomers hit it. Not *every* bad judicial decision is “liberal judicial activism”. But “liberal judicial activism” almost always results in bad decisions and bad law. It’s easy to tell when judges are creating new laws from the bench. They shouldn’t.
In short, this is well-written and clever. It’s also deeply cynical and rather offensive in labeling Conservatives as a bunch of hypocritical bigots. Of course, “hypocritical bigot” is fairly mild compared to some of the things that I’ve been called here.
And here I thought GK had decided to no longer grace us with his awesome intellect and conservative perspective…
Here’s the low-hanging nugget from that mish-mash of crap above:
Social Security is a massive Ponzi scheme which can’t possibly avoid going bankrupt when the bulk of the Baby Boomers hit it
Contributions to OAS were increased to 11.4% of wages in 1984 and 12.4% in 1990, more than payouts, which has resulted in FICA payers having $2.5T in excess contributions and accrued interest, all in the form of intragov’t debt.
Of course, if the back end of the Greenspan Commission deal is not honored and these excess FICA contributions are now blown off as irrelevant or unpayable, the baby boom will in fact overtax the program’s resources, unless the FICA rate is increased a point or two.
GK is of course a demonstrable liar on both the personal and ideological level so he will say that this $2.5T is fiction. This is the Big Lie the establishment is trying to purvey now and GK will not miss the opportunity here.
There’s nothing to really say about this but OK. . . let the election come and the results flow therefrom. Like Luis, I don’t actually have much paid into FICA so if the Republicans succeed in stealing that $2.5T owed to FICA payers, it’s really no skin off my nose. I might even applaud them on their success of executing the greatest theft in human history.
Gee, and here I was nervous about Social Security. I thought that the Government was spending money as fast as it came in. But now I know that it’s actually holding a big pile of “intragovernment debt”. In other words, the money has been spent on something else and Congress has written a note saying “S.S.-IOU $2.5 Trillion”. As long as you don’t mind getting your Social Security payments in the form of Government bonds, then everyone will be happy.
Of course SS has been running a surplus–it’s so they can pay it all down when the Boomer wave hits. But that money has been raided like candy in the jar, and only exists now on paper. The only thing the Government has now is a debt–to themselves.
This has happened under Republicans and Democrats alike, so blaming the Republicans for it is nonsense. I blame Roosevelt for the whole poorly-planned scheme.
P.S. When the best argument you have against someone is to dismiss their arguments as “crap” and their person as “a liar/troll” than it just reveals the fact that you don’t have plausible arguments in response. Just personal attacks to be deployed in the hopes of scaring the person off. The emperor has no clothes, so lock up that noisy boy.
Anyway, like you said, “let the election come and the results flow therefrom.” The Democrats have had two years of nearly total freedom to enact their agenda and get America to Love it. We’ll see just how forcefully it gets rejected in just a few weeks.
“OK, global warming is not scientifically proven…”
Have you seen before and after pictures of the Artic ocean during summer time? By before, I mean, circa 1960s versus now? Or pictures of any glacier, be it Alaska, the Alps or Kilimanjaro?
Then there’s the risk factor. Maybe there’s an 80% chance that even with global warming, things will turn out okay. Maybe there will be more rain in dry places, longer growing seasons, everything will be fine. But the down side of that 20% is so great and so vast… maybe two billion people will suddenly be unable to feed themselves because of flooding or draught?
A gun owner buys a gun on the .0001% chance he’ll stop a burglary and the 1% chance someone he knows and/or loves will inadvertently harm themselves, but they still buy the gun.
In this case, MOST scientist who aren’t Kockheads (i.e. funded by the Kock Brothers or one of their confederates, through a foundation or think tank) say that global warming is legitimate. There’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever. Furthermore it could be and probably is worse than they say – because in a warmer climate, not only is less water in the form of ice, more is in the form of vapor and vapor, too, is a green house gas. Take a look at the climate of Venus.
It’s not the odds that matter… its the potential down side of the odds that matter, and the irreverability or difficult to reverse… and the cascading consequences of global climate change… easily billions of people could suffer from famine.
As always, this is typical of Republicans/conservatives. They are wantonly reckless… it’s as if they are bent on destruction of everything that works in life, be it civil or natural. Their motivation is hard to fathom hear, and makes it difficult for anyone to conclude that there motivations aren’t evil AND stupid.
Maybe global climate change won’t be too significant or bad, but why chance it? For another percent point of profit? Please, it’s hard to take you serious.
The emperor has no clothes, so lock up that noisy boy.
No, I think it’s important to explore why you are compelled to bring your lies here.
Do you understand that you are a liar? Or are you of the pathological sort?
It was your brazen attempt to bullshit me about the Allies conducting public opinion polls in postwar Russia that made me really notice this, and it didn’t surprise me to find what looks like a similar willingness to distort the truth in your personal life, too.
I admit this is horribly ad-hom but I’m interested in this for the benefit of Luis’ comment section — to keep it free from your bullshit — and not to discredit your rightwing talking points (they are obvious enough).
Kock Brothers
Koch, actually. Interesting diagram here:
http://news.muckety.com/2010/08/27/koch-brothers-the-medicis-of-libertarian-politics/27851
But that money has been raided like candy in the jar, and only exists now on paper. The only thing the Government has now is a debt–to themselves.
This is, of course, the Big Lie the wealthy of this country want the hoi polloi to buy.
Your own words above:
Currently, 3% of Americans pay 52% of the taxes
illustrate the great wealth disparity in this country, which results in 70% of Federal Income tax receipts coming from the top 10% of the population.
So it is not Government owing a debt to themselves, it is the General Fund taxpayers owing a debt to FICA taxpayers. These are largely disjoint groups due to the FICA cap being set to the 90% level of total earnings, plus of course there’s the time difference involved of the FICA surplus being created 1985-2010 and the payouts beginning now.
The FICA payers’ money was not raided, it allowed the top 3% (and 10%) to pay somewhat less in taxes since 1985 when their contributions were raised.
Now that it’s time for the top 10% (and/or their inheritors) to pay back the FICA overpayers of 1985-2010, the rightwing media machine is being orchestrated for the wealthy to play poor and say “the money is all gone, we owe it to ourselves now”.
The audaciousness of this gambit is something to behold, as is the depth of the deception. When your argument is aligned with such lies, GK, maybe you should look into yourself why you buy it so.
Global Climate change is a very complex subject and no answer that I give is going to be adequate in a reasonable space. The fact is that we are currently in an intraglacial period in between ice ages. In the fairly recent past (Geologically), the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. The hypothesis that the recent (last 50-100 years) trend is to become sharply warmer and that human pollutants are responsible are both plausible but not conclusively proven.
Assuming that they are true for argument’s sake, what would you do? China, India and Russia are easily the worst polluters right now. Adding carbon caps in the US while doing nothing in China is nearly useless and will be an economic windfall for China. Attempting to put any kind of control on developing and Third-World countries will lead to charges of colonialism or worse. And Nuclear power is frowned upon by liberals–new Nuclear construction in the US is basically dead. Wind and solar are not serious alternatives for most applications.
Every action has a cost and benefit attached to it. $100 spent on vaccines, clean water, or economic development in most countries would save far more lives than an equivalent amount spent on Carbon reduction. So that’s what Conservatives are in favor of. And they are not in favor of torpedoing the US economy while China does nothing. In the meanwhile new carbon reduction strategies are being researched, as well as new sources of energy. So there’s no need to rush into a half-considered political scheme.
Or maybe we’re just evil. I don’t know. But killing babies isn’t as profitable as it used to be.
Assuming that they are true for argument’s sake, what would you do? China, India and Russia are easily the worst polluters right now.
Ah, but who has produced the most of the greenhouse crap that’s already up there?
Hint: the country’s initials spell US.
Clearly the burden should be borne relative to that, not current production.
And Nuclear power is frowned upon by liberals–new Nuclear construction in the US is basically dead
This is one of your lies.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-says-safe-nuclear-power-plants-are-a-necessary-investment.html
But overall I do agree with the conservativism involved in not rushing out and implementing carbon trading caps that harm our economy.
Of course, it’s questionable if cap & trade will actually harm anything significantly.
Let’s go back and review GK’s bullshit. I do this as a service.
Freedom doesn’t turn one thing into another and it doesn’t make two men living together a married family, with all the cultural and familial history that this implies.
The liberal argument is that homosexuality is natural and so is the desire for people to domicile together. There is no rational basis to deny heterosexual partners the benefits of being married in the eyes of the law. All the other cultural baggage is not asked for, just that right.
Conservatives deny homosexual partners that recognition for no rational reason. Most of them just want homosexuals to go away, and many of them have been taught to fear divine retribution of the Old Testament should the US allow homosexuals to partner as traditional married couples.
Falwell said it best:
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”
How does it feel to be arguing on the side of such bullshit, GK?
How about the liberty to open a porno shop next to an elementary school? Like the real estate agent said “Location, location, location.” The problem here, as he knows perfectly well, is that this “community center” has been situated as an obvious Islamic victory flag.
Denying freedom to worship on such conjectural basis is un-American. As Mayor Bloomberg said:
[Bloomberg] rejected demands to move the center, saying doing so, “…would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting.” Bloomberg also acknowledged that moving the Islamic center would not end the debate among opponents demagoguing Islam for political gain. “Islam did not attack the World Trade Center – Al-Qaeda did,” said the mayor. And he called attacks on the religion of Islam “unfair and un-American.”
It’s refreshing to see the few rational conservatives left defend freedom. It’s getting pretty rare these crazy days. (Props to Schwarzenegger for agreeing to not defend Prop 8, too).
We have Medicaid for poor families–a program which has bipartisan support. And there is lots of private charity also. The issue is whether *all* health care for *every* American needs to be government run and controlled. Obama says yes. Most Americans say no.
I addressed this elsewhere, that Canadian-style single payer polls majority support depending on the question.
But one question, GK. What is your experience with Japan’s Single Payer system?
I think the 30% deductible coupled with strict cost controls works pretty well. Combine that with a medical savings account and it would be a pretty good system for the US.
Judicial decisions have gone way beyond anything the Founders envisioned in separating Church and State. We’ve gone from non-interference to outright hostility and suppression. Don’t pretend that this kind of ACLU judicial radicalism is what the Founders had in mind.
Sheer bullshit without any example case to buttress the assertion. This is a standard tactic from you. Part of the approach to argument — just make shit up.
Currently, 3% of Americans pay 52% of the taxes. But that’s not enough. If we just squeeze them harder, all our problems will go away. Of course, they won’t be able to invest the money we tax away into new businesses or new jobs, but that’s ok. Higher taxes, the universal liberal cure-all.
It’s better to tax and spend than borrow and spend. Feel free to propose spending cuts to bring in the $1T+ deficit. We should cut military by half, only $600B to go!
S&P 500 is sitting on $2T of cash, the problem isn’t not enough resources. The core problem facing the economy is that the top 10% owns 90% of everything. That’s why they have the tax burden they do. Tough problem to have, wish I had it.
Ok, Global warming is not scientifically proven,
Addressed elsewhere. The industry pushback on global warming has certainly clouded the issue. Great job Conservatives!
and the solutions offered by liberals (”carbon caps”) are likely to be economically disastrous and ineffective.
Naked Assertion.
Nuclear power is probably the best alternative, but most liberals don’t like that either.
Except for Obama.
Health care “reform” is a disaster in Massachusetts (which has a program similar to Obamacare). It’s a massive Government power grab, which will result in most people being on a Government-run health plan with less coverage at higher cost.
Utter rightwing bullshit. “Power Grab” is propagandizing the situation. Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Finland, etc etc all have this “Power Grab” system that works demonstrably better than ours.
Our Powerless System pays more for less care. Let rightwing cranks like you GK defend it. You even defend the US system while having lived in Japan since 1995.
It’s a total train wreck with almost no redeeming features.
Assertion with no evidence. The contrary evidence of all other G20 nations having more socialized system just escapes your analysis. Really bizarre how you refuse to acknowledge reality here.
Social Security is a massive Ponzi scheme which can’t possibly avoid going bankrupt when the bulk of the Baby Boomers hit it.
Utterly wrong. As described above the system as designed will be able to make full payouts through 2030 (or beyond, depends on assumptions) without any changes to it at all. The bulk of the BB was born in 1955, so they will be hitting SS right about now, and the system has $2.5T in FICA taxation to claim from the general fund.
If the general fund can’t repay this, it’s a sovereign debt issue and not a SSTF one.
In short, this is well-written and clever. It’s also deeply cynical and rather offensive in labeling Conservatives as a bunch of hypocritical bigots. Of course, “hypocritical bigot” is fairly mild compared to some of the things that I’ve been called here.
Stop lying and I’ll stop calling out your lies and stop bullshitting us and I’ll stop calling out your bullshit.