More on (moron) Political Schools of thought...

In my last post, in addition to lamenting the decaying state of political discourse (in-box politics, bumper-sticker politics and beagle politics), I also tried to make the case that the hard-Right Wing has co-opted the word “conservative” to mean what “right-wing radical” used to, and sufficiently demonized the word “liberal” to the point where most people would rather be set on fire than be labeled one.  In other words, they’ve pulled the whole not notion of Left, Center and Right… to the Right. WAY to the right. I’ve argued this before, but something came to me recently that got me thinking…

There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!)  The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change!  And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post.  And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.

And with that in mind, I have to ask:

How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?

I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?

But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.

First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.

Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.

Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…

…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?

(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)

How evil is Glenn Beck?

Maybe I need Meds, but I'm seriously starting to believe that Glenn Beck is the Anti-Christ.  And that's coming from a staunch agnostic!  Here's why...

You may recall a few posts back, I posted my latest attack on organized religion essentially asking why we should believe lies when they lead to the deaths of children.  OK... to put it more reasonably, I attributed evil to the church, and denied them credit for the [little] good they did.

Now... What amazes me is that is you listen to this clip from Glenn Beck, I'm struck by the fact that this is trying to do away with the ONLY GOOD the church has EVER DONE!  Seriously.  I'll concede that Religion has done some good (still not convinced it couldn't have happened without all the bullshit that comes with religion, but whatever) but pretty much any good that religion does, including all of it's charitable works, would fall under "social justice."  Feed and clothe the homeless, help the poor, etc...

This guy, OTOH, think church should instead EMBRACE only the racism, exclusion, judgement, prejudice, inequality, etc... That even many religious people will admit is problematic!

So here's another "open question" to those who might defend religion: If you do as Beck suggests, and eliminate all that "social justice," is there ANY redeeming quality left?  Should we really allow an institution to exist that makes people superstitious AND evil?  Seriously?  I'd love to hear HIS answer on that!

BTW - I think it should be obvious but... I'm not calling for the elimination of the CHURCH.  Just for people to WAKE THE FUCK UP about Glenn Beck.  He's dangerous.  And he's the one who should really be on meds.

Prom Cancelled Over Lesbian Date

This is just disgusting.

And the sad thing is that there are probably a whole slew of back-woods, red-necked inbreeds that blame THE GIRL.

But perhaps the biggest load of ignorance, the crowning turd in the toliet bowl that passes for this town's cultural heritage is the following, by Anna Watson, a 17-year-old junior at the high school:

"I am a little bummed out about it. I guess it's a decision that had to be made. Either way someone was going to get disappointed — either Constance was or we were,"

Um, no sweety, you see that's what we calls a false dilemma. There's is actually a third option here:

EVERYONE GETS TO GO TO PROM, SO EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEY WANT.

See, that's how INCLUSION works. Just because a stupid policy exists does NOT mean that either Constance needs to be kicked out or the whole thing needs to be cancelled. Only the very most ass-headed Conservatives think like that. Try thinking for yourself, or you'll make me think that public education was wasted on you. Check it out: You get to go. (Happy.) She gets to go. (Happy.) Everyone is happy except for the inbred, bible-humping, rednecks that need to GROW THE FUCK UP and MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

This is the stupidest bunch of bullshit I've seen in a long time. Maybe she should graduate in a separate ceremony too. You know, the way things USED to be in Mississ-fucking-ssippi. What'd they call it? Separate but equal? I don't know why we ever had to get rid of that! I mean... separate water fountains means shorter lines for everyone, right?

I wonder how many white might take blacks to the prom and vice-versa. Well... it's Mississippi, so probably NONE. But I'm sure it's happened. And I'm sure there was a brouhaha the first time it did. You gotta wonder how THAT couple views something like this. Amazing how many people refuse to evolve, refuse to progress, refuse to GROW UP.

This is not Constance's fault and this is not the ACLU's fault.  This is the SCHOOL'S fault, 100%.  They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but I know they arent.  And ALL of the parents should be pissed at the school, but I'd be surprised if ANY are.

WHY the Republicans will ALWAYS run up the National Debt

I'd like to think that I'm not one to buy into paranoid copnspiracy theories too easily.  I mean... I've said many times that the Skeptic's Dictionary is my bible.  I think Glenn Beck is a delusional loon in desperate need of medication.  So, yeah... I'd like to think I know crazy when I see it.  Also, I'd like to think that, at least in the long term, people tend to be rational.  (Or failing that, then at least in the short term!)  And that's what's so crazy about the insane idea I'm about to present: It's really, truly rational, from the point of view of those on the Right.

In my last post I think I clearly demonstrated that, despite their rhetoric, it's Republicans rather than Democrats that spend like drunken sailors and run up huge debts.  And at the end I said that I'd explain why this is the case, or at least has been since 1980.  And it sounds crazy, unless you're just predisposed to believe ANYTHING about Republican's, but I'm actually not one of those types.  In fact when I first read this from some poster on MMFA a year or two ago, I dismissed it as "liberal bullshit." (Which, as a liberal, I think I'm especially entitled to call out from time to time! LOL) But the more I think about the more I appreciate the genius of it.

One of the things that you always hear from the Right is that we've got to rein in (get rid of) entitlements.  It's a nice buzzword that you can throw out there if you want to sound intelligent to a conservative crowd. (Of course, sounding intelligent isn't the same as BEING intelligent, but you won't get along with these people using your fancy librul edukashun and yer fancy librul LOGIC and REASONIN'.)  ANYWAY "entitlements" is a fancy way of saying, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc..." and if you REALLY but into it you can throw in Public Schools, and just about everything else that most reasonable, moderate people have come to expect their governement to provide.  You see... the Right HATES these things.  They HATE they idea that someone might get something they didn't "earn" and that someone else (on the Right) is losing an opportunity to profit from providing it to them.  You see, in their ideal world, you'd have two classes: Company Owners and the Shleps who work for them.  One group would have pretty much EVRERYTHING and the other would have whatever the HAVES felt they were worth.  So... yeah, pretty much nothing.  It's the kind of environment revolutions spring from, but most on the Right think that little more than a bluff these days, at least in this country.  Anyway, suffice to say that ANYTHING that HELPS PEOPLE has to go.  After all, if people stay poor, then the cost of labor goes down, and it's supply-side economic heaven.  (Which is to say, HELL, but I'll save that for another post!)

So they want to kill Social Security, Medicare, etc... But the pretty much know they can't actually RUN on that platform.  President Eisenhower knew this to be true:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

(What happened to these kinds of Republicans?!)

So what to do? How do we get people on board with this?  Well, one way would be to run up huge deficits every year, and get to the point where financing the National Debt (that means the annual interest payments) would end up consuming so much of the Federal Budget that we would be left with NO CHOICE but to gut or cut these programs.  Now it's not like they can do this in just one year.  People might notice.  And congress, and the public will never go along with it, right?  But this has been going on for THIRTY YEARS now! Two or three generations of Americans have grown up knowing nothing but huge federal deficits, and have come of age to the constannt drum beat of how there's a crisis in Social Security and a crisis in Medicare... And by now, we almost take for granted that these programs are doomed.  That they won't be around by the time we retire.  And the media (all of whom are corporate owned, which means all ofwhom are Right leaning) have been very complicit in driving this message home, and in helping perpetuate the narrtive that it the spending levels of the Democrats that are the problem.

And think about it... At this point how DO we fix things?  Well... the right knows that only one or two thigns will happen: Either we cut spending, which will effect these programs.  That's fine with them, that's thei rultimate goal - to get rid of these programs.  Or we raise taxes.  And WHO will raise taxes?  Well, the DEMOCRATS of course!  Because they're the only one interested in sustainable long-term governance!  There only only ones interested in reversing this trend.  Tax-cuts and higher defiicits serve the Republican cause!  But the Right, and their lap-dogs in the media will hammer home the narritive that the Democrats are the "tax-and-spenders" and not showing "fiscal discipline."  They'll never really show you that the crisis was created entirely by Republicans, specifically so they can either gut these otherwise perfectly sustainable (and popular!) programs or be able top paint the Democrats as the party of "high taxes" and use this to win elections and get right back to their agenda of bankrupting the Government... in order to get rid of these otherwise sustainable (and popular!) programs.

At least when a Liberal runs a deficit, it with a Keynsian motive in mind: They want to help the economy, save jobs and maintain people's financial security.  And running deficits by NOT raising taxes and NOT cutting speding will do just that.  But the way these Republicans act, doing this even in boom-times, I can't see any rational outcome OTHER than bankrupting the governement.  So I ask again: WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?  The one who taxes and spends in a effort to improve the economy, and help improve people's standard of living, or the one who wants to bankrupt the government, get rid of all social programs, and eventually pay NO TAXES so that they can keep ALL the money, and no one else can have ANYTHING?

I realize that I'm channeling Glenn  Beck at this point, but I challenge you to come up with any other explanation that can reconcile Republican fiscal rhetoric with Republican fiscal POLICY.

Orwellian Language Part One: Conservative

This is the first of three piece I want to do on our English language. As appalling as I feel the Republican's and the Right's political and social agenda is, and how much I feel it would butcher all things holy and American, it pales in comparison to what the Right in this country has done to our LANGUAGE in order to sell their tripe to the American people. Channelling one of my three heroes, George Carlin, for a moment, it appals me how they have taken various words and absolutely stripped them of any and all meaning, in a effort to apply positive sounding words to themselves and negative sounding words to their opponents. It the worst kind of euphemistic abuse of our language. So, here we go:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part One: Conservative

The first word that the right in this country absolutely had to hijack was “conservative.” They did this because the word seems to suggest a certain amount of moderation, and a reasoned, rational approach – as opposed to “radical” which they sought to apply to all things liberal, and “reactionary” which is a far more accurate way to describe them.

First of all, let’s take a look at the word “conservative” as we understand it today. It has, along with "liberal" been unfortunately loaded with a lot of unnecessary political baggage meant to described the positions that one with that label is supposed to hold: anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-labor, anti-regulation, low-taxes, hawkish on defense… The modern conservative movement is an awkward mix of libertarians and religious funny-mentalists at home (two group with very much mutually exclusive social agendas, BTW) and a hypocritical mix of libertarians, who say that the gov’t should stay the hell out of the lives of Americans, and Hawks, who think our gov’t needs to control, as much possible, the lives of every non-American abroad. (And God forbid we ever listen to any other country, even our allies, and even when it’s in our own interest to do so! We’re AMERICA dammit! And we know best!) OK, this is admittedly a caricature, but I submit that it’s a fairly accurate one: The beliefs that I present in a mocking fashion are nonetheless sacred to most in this group!

But it wasn’t always this way.

The was a time when BOTH parties has conservative and liberal wings. At one point, prominent Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt belongs to the “progressive” wing of the party. (And “progressive,” of course, is a word that modern liberals have attempted to re-brand themselves under!) It was the conservative Democrats who regularly delivered almost every state south of the Mason-Dixon line, from Texas to Florida to the Democrats every year from the Civil War to the Civil Rights era. (Since 1964, however, that trend has obviously changed, as conservative Democrats became Republicans!) Likewise, it was the Liberal (meaning libertarian) Republicans who consistently delivered the Northern Cities and States to the Republicans. (And again, since 1964 the East Coast, from Maryland on up, has trended consistently Democratic, as the same liberal Republicans became Democrats (though admittedly other demographic factors and changes were in play as well.) But this trend has been going on since 1964 for the Republicans and the Right to monopolize the word “conservative.” In the late 1960’s, this may have made sense, linguistically. Beyond that, the term has had to be perverted from it’s philosophical meaning to continue to fit their political agenda.

If you strip the word of it’s political implications, one possible definition of philosophical or social conservatism might be “the desire to maintain the status quot" or "to minimize the deviation from the status quot.” Liberal, to contrast the two, would be one who seeks something very different form the status quot, one who seeks to change the way things are. Taken this way, the term really means “moderate” and, since BOTH parties have rather a few changes they’d like to make, most of both the Democrats and Republicans could then be accurately described as “liberals” – they would just be spilt into left-wing and right-wing liberals, while the "conservatives" would the be the centrists in both parties, and would agree on many positions with each other, as well as differ from the rest of their party on many issues as well. Over the years, in order to advance their agenda, each party has made efforts to reign in (or kick out) most of these “conservative” members. Ironically however, if centrism and party in-fighting is any indication, it would seem that the Republicans have been more effective at doing this: They are the party of Right Wings “liberals” and between the defection of Arlen Specter to the out come of the NY-23 congressional election in 2009, they are showing diminished patience for these “conservatives.” The Democrats, on the other hand, between the Blue Dogs and the Republican defectors have shown far more of a big-tent mentality and thus far more "conservative" cred.

Now, brace yourself, because it will surprise many of you to hear me say this… There is rather a bit of rational wisdom in this type of philosophical conservatism! Here are two ways to view it, coming from diametrically opposed points of view, that both support this conclusion:

1) From a religious or intelligent design standpoint, one can argue that things are they way they are because this is how God intended them to be. And who are we to claim that we know better than God? So… proceed with caution! (IOW: conservatively.)
2) From a Darwinian standpoint, at any given time, things have arrived at their current state through the ongoing struggle and survival of the fittest. The current species, economic and business models and system of governance and politics all came about through years of struggle and competition in which only the best would win at every given stage and thus, if not perfect, the current status quot would be at least optimized, based on initial conditions and everyone’s competing ideas thus far. So, again, proceed with caution, or IOW: act conservatively.

In both instances, if one wants to act “liberally” (whether from the Right or Left) they’d better have a darned good reason for doing so, and be able to clearly identify WHY the current state of affairs resembles neither a divine vision, nor a Darwinian optimization. The modern liberal, when arguing economic matters, might point out that the current state of affairs in most industries in NOT the result of the free market, nor of competition, but rather the result of HUGE corporations, now inefficient, bur flush with cash from prior but no longer sustainable successes, managing to stifle competition, and the complicity of the federal government in letting huge companies merge, creating fewer companies with more individual power – hardly the vision of free market competition! So their agenda, with includes increased gov’t regulation of industry and more power to labor groups, could be described as liberal (changing the status quot) and yet, still be justified from the “conservative” perspective since most industry giants now use their resources to act more to protect their own survival (to protect themselves from having to compete) than for any optimization of the society overall. The modern conservative (what I’m would call a “right-wing liberal”) justifies their agenda by trying to recapture “divine vision” that existed at some point but, for whatever reason, have been pushed aside.

Perhaps the most clear example of how the language has shifted might be shown in the Right’s (and Left’s) positions on Abortion. The status quot is that Abortion is legal, with some restrictions, mostly involving minors. It does not receive direct federal funding and is covered by many, but not all, insurance plans. THAT’S the status quot. Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life describes which way someone would like to see the laws changed and “conservative” versus “liberal” would describe how MUCH they’d like to see the laws changed. Someone who WANTS to see all restrictions listed, and use federal money to subsidize abortions would be described as a “pro-choice liberal.” Someone who wants to see some restrictions enacted, but still wants to protect core abortion rights (as I’ve described in my position piece on Abortion) would then be described as a “pro-life conservative.” (Who’d a thunk I’d ever be described thus?) The Right's actual (or so-called) pro-life agenda of eventually banning ALL abortions, could then only be described as “pro-life liberal.” You see: There is nothing inherent to either of the word “conservative” or “liberal” that describes how you should feel about ABORTION. They refer only to the way things are, and whether you want no, or only minor changes, or large, sweeping changes. Only PRIOR to the Roe v. Wade decision would “liberal” necessarily suggest a pro-choice stance, since that would have been a significant change from the status quot. POST Roe, the only "conservative" positions would be those that keep the law as it is, but try to apply the relatively easy to agree upon “middle ground” as, for example, I proposed doing (See? There IS some Wisdom in conservatism! LOL) -OR- to make relatively minor relaxations of the current restrictions, and make a few, narrow exception to the Hyde act. (That would be a Pro-Choice Conservative position, which practically IS the status quot.)

But there are two ways thing can change: They can change… and they can change back! And here is where we have two divisions within the “liberal” philosophy. You’ve got the “Progressives” who are forward looking, and try to fix the errors of history that remain with us through unlucky chance, and “Reactionaries” who look to the past with a sense of envy, a sort of longing for an idealized world that they perceived was lost. (A world, BTW, that one can argue never really existed, or is being idealized, but we’ll save deconstructing the good ol' days for another post!) One can see easily where the religious fervor current gripping the Right would fit it nicely with this world view – paradise lost but looking to be regained and all that. Given that, it is clear that we have plenty of both “Liberal / Progressives” as well as “Left Wing Conservatives” in the Democratic Party, while the Republicans are comprised of “Liberal / Reactionaries” and an ever shrinking number of “Right-Wing Conservatives.”

Now... I do realize that the word “conservative” is no longer used this way, but the purpose here is to demonstrate how the Right is distorting our language to their own ends. I realized that, when I was growing up, and I thought of myself as “conservative,” I was taking the classic definition; that of being a moderate. And to this day I remain a moderate. A decidedly LEFT-WING moderate, but a moderate none the less. (Anyone who doubts this can look at my list of 10 most hated liberals!) My viewpoint of “conservatism,” relative to the status quot, might be best demonstrated in my health care plan: Rather than reinvent the entire system, I seek to use the parts that WORK from within the current system (insurance companies managing cost, market forces, risk pooling) and only seek to change the parts that don’t (non-mandatory participation, refusal of coverage, preexisting condition, lack of choice, etc…) In my professional life, I don’t reinvent the wheel if I don’t absolutely have to – better to find an off the shelf solution that’s already been tested, than to incur all the development costs of creating a new one!

And THAT to me is conservatism. It has nothing to do with Right vs. Left, Religion vs. Secularism, or Republican vs. Democrat. It has to do with the preservation of the status quot vs. either Progressive influence or Reactionary influence. (And for the record I was almost ALWAYS side with the Progressives over the Reactionaries – thus my strongly Democratic voting record of late!)