I must say that all of this yelling about Miranda rights and the fact that it's now being referred to as "the Miranda debate" consistently leaves me very confused. This on top of years of people making jokes about how I should read them their rights upon being told my name.
Little did my parents know what they were burdening me with.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
File under "le sigh"
At least 10 states look like they'll be dealing with at least attempts to emulate Arizona's immigration law. Granted, it seems like lots of these ideas won't go far (Ohio, really?), but it's still...unfortunate, I guess.
I've never quite understood why states seem to go through fads with hot-button issues. One state moves on something and all of a sudden an equivalent is being proposed at the state house or offered as a ballot initiative all over the country--even though most of these issues don't affect all states in the same way or to the same degree.
I do understand the kick-in-the-ass effect of having one of your peers go where none has gone before or what have you, but it always feels stupid to me even when it's working in a direction I agree with. You'd think if it's that important, you'd want to take the time to do it right--or perhaps you'd already have done it--rather than waiting for one audacious (or in this case, totally effing crazy) state to lead a straggling charge.
For the record, my favorite of the initiatives discussed at the link is Missouri's:
It just brings me back to when I was learning about the Underground Railroad in second grade, you know?
I've never quite understood why states seem to go through fads with hot-button issues. One state moves on something and all of a sudden an equivalent is being proposed at the state house or offered as a ballot initiative all over the country--even though most of these issues don't affect all states in the same way or to the same degree.
I do understand the kick-in-the-ass effect of having one of your peers go where none has gone before or what have you, but it always feels stupid to me even when it's working in a direction I agree with. You'd think if it's that important, you'd want to take the time to do it right--or perhaps you'd already have done it--rather than waiting for one audacious (or in this case, totally effing crazy) state to lead a straggling charge.
For the record, my favorite of the initiatives discussed at the link is Missouri's:
The state legislature is considering a law that would make it unlawful for any person to conceal or shelter "illegal aliens," and would also make it a crime for illegal immigrants to transport themselves. Similar local laws have in the past been declared unconstitutional.
It just brings me back to when I was learning about the Underground Railroad in second grade, you know?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
It's that time again
Link dump!
First off, Marc Ambinder brings us this graphic from Pew on party ID:
I think this is great news. The two-party system is moribund and the lesser its hold on the voting population, the better.
Next: Kevin Drum meditates on torture. An excerpt:
Whether the point of civilization really is as much moral advancement as physical (what does that mean, concretely?) and technological advancement is, if you ask me, up for debate. But the liberal political project (and I mean liberal not in the American political sense but in the philosophical sense that includes both Rousseau and Burke) certainly argues that it is. Without that presumption the entire structure of liberalism is undone. The American democratic structure is deeply predicated on that framework, and so while I think from a realistic, anthropological, and even historical viewpoint Drum's assertion may be questionable, I think it's useful in terms of this discussion.
Finally: I've been a bit curious about John Huntsman, Governor of Utah, since he revealed that he supports civil unions--who wouldn't be? Utah is about as solidly red as a state can get, and that redness is very cultural. He himself is a Mormon. Finally, as it's starting to seem that he'll run for President, I got myself over to his Wikipedia page and I must say the man holds my interest. I think he falls under that category of politicians whom I like and respect and want to see do well--but not so well that I'd vote for them. I have the feeling that I'm diametrically opposed to Huntsman on most fiscal and economic policy, but I respect the independent thinking (or, potentially, political brilliance) that his social heterodoxy would seem to represent.
It's midterms week here, and I've had two tests, two papers, a B.A. thesis proposal, and the nervewracking act of asking an important professor to be my thesis advisor to handle--and it's only Wednesday night!--so that's all I got. Time now for my brain to be allowed to shut off.
First off, Marc Ambinder brings us this graphic from Pew on party ID:
I think this is great news. The two-party system is moribund and the lesser its hold on the voting population, the better.
Next: Kevin Drum meditates on torture. An excerpt:
The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement. But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously. In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn't be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn't be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.
On other things there's no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
Whether the point of civilization really is as much moral advancement as physical (what does that mean, concretely?) and technological advancement is, if you ask me, up for debate. But the liberal political project (and I mean liberal not in the American political sense but in the philosophical sense that includes both Rousseau and Burke) certainly argues that it is. Without that presumption the entire structure of liberalism is undone. The American democratic structure is deeply predicated on that framework, and so while I think from a realistic, anthropological, and even historical viewpoint Drum's assertion may be questionable, I think it's useful in terms of this discussion.
Finally: I've been a bit curious about John Huntsman, Governor of Utah, since he revealed that he supports civil unions--who wouldn't be? Utah is about as solidly red as a state can get, and that redness is very cultural. He himself is a Mormon. Finally, as it's starting to seem that he'll run for President, I got myself over to his Wikipedia page and I must say the man holds my interest. I think he falls under that category of politicians whom I like and respect and want to see do well--but not so well that I'd vote for them. I have the feeling that I'm diametrically opposed to Huntsman on most fiscal and economic policy, but I respect the independent thinking (or, potentially, political brilliance) that his social heterodoxy would seem to represent.
It's midterms week here, and I've had two tests, two papers, a B.A. thesis proposal, and the nervewracking act of asking an important professor to be my thesis advisor to handle--and it's only Wednesday night!--so that's all I got. Time now for my brain to be allowed to shut off.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Bubbles will save us
So I finally got a look at this here Republican "budget" (which you can download here--it's not a big file *snicker*), and it really is as funny as people have been saying. Some part of me assumed they were exaggerating, but no. The bubble diagrams are really there. Some of them have seemingly random pictures inside. I think my favorite is the picture of a shop window saying "Yes we are OPEN" linked to the picture of stacks of cash money. Both in nice little blue circles. So cogent is the Republican economic vision that it doesn't even need words.
I forget who said that this was like what would happen if The Onion came out with a budget, but they were absolutely right. I can't believe it. No wonder Eric Cantor is leaking to the press that he thought this was a lousy idea from the start. I'm half-surprised it's still prominently displayed on the party website; most everybody must be running, not walking, away from this thing.
I mean:
I also found this bit to be pretty rich. From the "curbs spending"bubble section:
Labor union bosses participating in a new green jobs program! Community organizers funded by the government! Outrageous! (How do you like the little shoutout to ACORN paranoiacs?) More seriously, I will grant that reasonable people can in fact disagree over the legitimacy or necessity of the NEA (though I am certainly a fan), and that every President does promise to eliminate wasteful spending and not much ever happens (because this is more complicated and difficult than people appreciate, and because "wasteful spending" of this kind does not actually come to that much money in the context of Social Security, the Pentagon, etc). However, most of the other programs cited here with such righteous rancor, while potentially debatable on other grounds, are pretty unimpeachable when it comes to stimulating our economy. Title X Family Planning would have been one of the best possible additions to the stimulus; it helps women avoid unwanted and expensive pregnancies, and believe me the money for the subsidized birth control would have been spent right quick. PBS, community organizations, etc. are keeping a lot of people employed with those federal dollars. I could go on, but for god's sake I'm arguing with the bubble people.
The next paragraph was what actually made me laugh.
See what we did there? We are going to stop spending money on everything but the military, which is of course not at ALL a fiscal giant on par with entitlement programs, certainly not ever wasteful (what are you IMPLYING?!), and in no way overlaps with the foreign aid and assistance programs denounced as wasteful and unnecessary in the previous paragraph. Did you notice how fully funding the "ongoing commitments" (which I am assuming, with the air of a desperate person clinging to a raft at sea, would include said foreign aid and development, since those are commitments and I hope we actually don't want to piss off more or less the entire world) will lead to reduced fighting, which will lead to savings, which we will use to...fund the military? Which beast should we be starving here?
This whole document gives me the sense of a mad--yet prim--old lady aunt who has very strong opinions about very, very crazy things, but is also quite the pearl-clutcher should you mention reality. Oh, and I guess she has some graphics skills, what with the bubbles and all. Hilzoy and Steve Benen have more.
I forget who said that this was like what would happen if The Onion came out with a budget, but they were absolutely right. I can't believe it. No wonder Eric Cantor is leaking to the press that he thought this was a lousy idea from the start. I'm half-surprised it's still prominently displayed on the party website; most everybody must be running, not walking, away from this thing.
I mean:
I also found this bit to be pretty rich. From the "curbs spending"
Who are the recipients of such largesse? International organizations and foreign aid recipients, including millions for reconstruction in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Labor union bosses participating in a new “green jobs” program. The National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Americorps, Title X Family Planning, and a host of spending programs that will do nothing to help our economy recover. And even community organizers, such as ACORN, performing “neighborhood stabilization.” Hundreds of programs deemed ineffective by prior Administrations are funded, despite promises from the President to go “line by line” to examine each program’s effectiveness.
Labor union bosses participating in a new green jobs program! Community organizers funded by the government! Outrageous! (How do you like the little shoutout to ACORN paranoiacs?) More seriously, I will grant that reasonable people can in fact disagree over the legitimacy or necessity of the NEA (though I am certainly a fan), and that every President does promise to eliminate wasteful spending and not much ever happens (because this is more complicated and difficult than people appreciate, and because "wasteful spending" of this kind does not actually come to that much money in the context of Social Security, the Pentagon, etc). However, most of the other programs cited here with such righteous rancor, while potentially debatable on other grounds, are pretty unimpeachable when it comes to stimulating our economy. Title X Family Planning would have been one of the best possible additions to the stimulus; it helps women avoid unwanted and expensive pregnancies, and believe me the money for the subsidized birth control would have been spent right quick. PBS, community organizations, etc. are keeping a lot of people employed with those federal dollars. I could go on, but for god's sake I'm arguing with the bubble people.
The next paragraph was what actually made me laugh.
In addition to securing our nation’s major entitlements, by enacting common-sense reforms and weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans propose to undo the recent reckless and wasteful Democrat spending binge included in the so-called “stimulus” and omnibus bills. In addition, Republicans would cut overall nondefense spending by reforming or eliminating a host of wasteful programs deemed ineffective by various government entities. And Republicans would fully fund our ongoing commitments overseas while devoting the entirety of any savings from reduced fighting to deficit reduction, rebuilding our military, and funding our commitment to
our veterans.
See what we did there? We are going to stop spending money on everything but the military, which is of course not at ALL a fiscal giant on par with entitlement programs, certainly not ever wasteful (what are you IMPLYING?!), and in no way overlaps with the foreign aid and assistance programs denounced as wasteful and unnecessary in the previous paragraph. Did you notice how fully funding the "ongoing commitments" (which I am assuming, with the air of a desperate person clinging to a raft at sea, would include said foreign aid and development, since those are commitments and I hope we actually don't want to piss off more or less the entire world) will lead to reduced fighting, which will lead to savings, which we will use to...fund the military? Which beast should we be starving here?
This whole document gives me the sense of a mad--yet prim--old lady aunt who has very strong opinions about very, very crazy things, but is also quite the pearl-clutcher should you mention reality. Oh, and I guess she has some graphics skills, what with the bubbles and all. Hilzoy and Steve Benen have more.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A couple of things
I'm in the midst of finals, so this is one of those posts where I took a break to consume some information and I'm just throwing out whatever comes to mind. Cogency is for losers anyway.
1. The UAE, having already banned Flickr, seems to be considering banning YouTube as well. Most reactions have been negative (duh), but I found this response interesting [Via Global Voices]:
He or she (can't tell) goes on to say that YouTube of course also serves valuable functions of communication, education, and debate, and should not be completely banned. I found that part of the response interesting because political scientists know full well that "WE DO NOT have democracy and total freedom of expression in the Arab world" and "The stable and relatively prosperous Arab societies are stable because there are measures that ENSURE everything stays stable", they consider it a bad thing (and furthermore consider these stabilizing measures authoritarian roadblocks to democracy--and democracy is generally assumed to be a goal and a good one), and they would probably be shaking their heads in despair at an Arab citizen being so happy with said stability. Just goes to show that it's all fun and games when it's someone else's revolution (or, conversely, when one is not suffering economically or otherwise from the absence of revolution).
2. Wow. After Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) called for the GOP to model an insurgent strategy on the Taliban, I thought we could move past all this. I figured it was the kind of thing that makes sense in your head and then you ill-advisedly say it out loud and then everybody moves on and pretends it never happened because oof. But no:
Eesh. Parroting what you ostensibly hate and are defending "civilization" against has got to be awkward. (Even more awkward than when Al-Qaeda started bitching about a pro-Obama media bias, because this time the Republicans did it, themselves, on purpose.) H/t Balloon Juice.
1. The UAE, having already banned Flickr, seems to be considering banning YouTube as well. Most reactions have been negative (duh), but I found this response interesting [Via Global Voices]:
There comes the inevitable question, is youtube totally ‘safe’? Of course not, and I wholeheartedly support censorship on some of its content. Especially the kind of hate inciting content. You might choose to believe otherwise, but WE DO NOT have democracy and total freedom of expression in the Arab World. We have a vicious Sunni-Shia sectarian strife. We have an intimidating rate of illiteracy. We have an intimidating rate of credulity. The stable and relatively prosperous Arab societies are stable because there are measures that ENSURE everything stays stable. Even when stability sometimes borders on stagnation….. in short, I am not worried about moral disintegration of societies, I am worried about strives and rifts. So for the time being, some of the content, in my opinion, may have to be censored.
He or she (can't tell) goes on to say that YouTube of course also serves valuable functions of communication, education, and debate, and should not be completely banned. I found that part of the response interesting because political scientists know full well that "WE DO NOT have democracy and total freedom of expression in the Arab world" and "The stable and relatively prosperous Arab societies are stable because there are measures that ENSURE everything stays stable", they consider it a bad thing (and furthermore consider these stabilizing measures authoritarian roadblocks to democracy--and democracy is generally assumed to be a goal and a good one), and they would probably be shaking their heads in despair at an Arab citizen being so happy with said stability. Just goes to show that it's all fun and games when it's someone else's revolution (or, conversely, when one is not suffering economically or otherwise from the absence of revolution).
2. Wow. After Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) called for the GOP to model an insurgent strategy on the Taliban, I thought we could move past all this. I figured it was the kind of thing that makes sense in your head and then you ill-advisedly say it out loud and then everybody moves on and pretends it never happened because oof. But no:
Now, at a time when the national GOP is trying to find its voice and cultivate new candidates, California GOP activists have begun engaging in a new pastime: issuing "fatwas" to punish state Republican legislators deemed too moderate on tax issues.
[...]
The raucous California tea party featured such dramatics as the spearing of a likeness of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's head, and the sledge-hammering of a pile of Schwarzenegger dolls, videos and movie memorabilia - even an action hero lunch box.
The radio hosts' "fatwas" target a handful of moderate GOP legislators who sided with Democrats to end the state budget impasse. Their calls to recall those lawmakers have reverberated throughout the Republican grassroots.
"It's becoming the fatwa party ... the Jon and Ken party," said Hoover Institution media fellow and GOP consultant Bill Whalen.
Eesh. Parroting what you ostensibly hate and are defending "civilization" against has got to be awkward. (Even more awkward than when Al-Qaeda started bitching about a pro-Obama media bias, because this time the Republicans did it, themselves, on purpose.) H/t Balloon Juice.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
You have got to be kidding me
NYTimes: Both Parties Move to Aid Homeowners.
The title seems innocuous enough. Half of what's in the article is innocuous too.
Apparently the stimulus is being recrafted to include provisions intended to a) help reduce foreclosures and allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate mortgage payments for homeowners in default, and b) stimulate the housing market because that is the cause of all of our troubles.
A) makes sense. B) is insanity.
The housing market is in a slump because there was a housing bubble. Trying to get people to buy more houses will not change the fact that the bubble must deflate. All you do is delay the inevitable.
There is an argument for doing so--that if you can spread out the pain and make the deflation longer and slower, the economic pain won't be as catastrophic. That's basically the argument for bailing out banks, or it was when "bailing out" implied breaking up businesses, restructuring, selling off bad assets, or anything else that involved dealing with economic pain rather than sending everybody off on a three-month cruise and hoping they all get drunk enough that they won't remember this "crisis" business by the time they come back.
But the problem with that argument in terms of the housing market is that people are not perfectly rational and no one is going to buy a fucking house right now. I don't care what tax credits you throw at them, it's just not going to happen. From the article:
Even though home-building has been depressed for almost two years, the soaring number of foreclosures has continued to drive prices down and kept the supply of unsold homes at extremely high levels.
See? Home-building has been depressed for two years, guys. That's because demand for houses has been down for longer than that. Nobody wants to touch a mortgage right now, and the number of people for whom the government can make a difference on this is negligible in terms of economic healing and/or stimulus.
The article in general is an odd read--it keeps lurching back and forth between reasonable things (make it easier for people whose mortgages are killing them to stay in their homes) and this housing market madness. Ah, but all becomes clear:
Of course. The Democrats want to do something potentially sensible and the Republicans are yammering on in supply-side clichés.
And--don't forget!--it manages to simultaneously come with a hefty price tag:
But senior Democratic lawmakers are staunchly opposed to the plan, warning that the costs could climb as high as $1 trillion.
It's amazing the duds these people can come out with. This is one case where bipartisan outreach is really, really not a good idea.
The title seems innocuous enough. Half of what's in the article is innocuous too.
Apparently the stimulus is being recrafted to include provisions intended to a) help reduce foreclosures and allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate mortgage payments for homeowners in default, and b) stimulate the housing market because that is the cause of all of our troubles.
A) makes sense. B) is insanity.
The housing market is in a slump because there was a housing bubble. Trying to get people to buy more houses will not change the fact that the bubble must deflate. All you do is delay the inevitable.
There is an argument for doing so--that if you can spread out the pain and make the deflation longer and slower, the economic pain won't be as catastrophic. That's basically the argument for bailing out banks, or it was when "bailing out" implied breaking up businesses, restructuring, selling off bad assets, or anything else that involved dealing with economic pain rather than sending everybody off on a three-month cruise and hoping they all get drunk enough that they won't remember this "crisis" business by the time they come back.
But the problem with that argument in terms of the housing market is that people are not perfectly rational and no one is going to buy a fucking house right now. I don't care what tax credits you throw at them, it's just not going to happen. From the article:
Even though home-building has been depressed for almost two years, the soaring number of foreclosures has continued to drive prices down and kept the supply of unsold homes at extremely high levels.
See? Home-building has been depressed for two years, guys. That's because demand for houses has been down for longer than that. Nobody wants to touch a mortgage right now, and the number of people for whom the government can make a difference on this is negligible in terms of economic healing and/or stimulus.
The article in general is an odd read--it keeps lurching back and forth between reasonable things (make it easier for people whose mortgages are killing them to stay in their homes) and this housing market madness. Ah, but all becomes clear:
But beneath the consensus over helping the housing market, there are huge differences over who should benefit under the competing plans. Democrats want to aim money directly at people in the greatest distress; Republicans want to aim money at almost all homebuyers, on the theory that a rising tide will eventually lift all boats.
[...]
The Republican approaches are aimed much more at boosting the entire housing market, and would only provide indirect relief to families about to lose their homes.
Of course. The Democrats want to do something potentially sensible and the Republicans are yammering on in supply-side clichés.
And--don't forget!--it manages to simultaneously come with a hefty price tag:
But senior Democratic lawmakers are staunchly opposed to the plan, warning that the costs could climb as high as $1 trillion.
It's amazing the duds these people can come out with. This is one case where bipartisan outreach is really, really not a good idea.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Wow.
Forbes has a list of the 25 most influential liberals in the media up. Reading through it, it becomes pretty clear that their definition of "liberal" is, well, touchy. As far as I can tell, Chris Hitchens is on there solely for not liking Sarah Palin (plus maybe for being an atheist). Seriously, guys, your last sentence in describing the man who loves waterboarding is that he has "supported the war on terror as enthusiastically as he has excoriated Sarah Palin" and he's on your influential liberals list? Not your influential war-supporters-with-self-respect list?
Anyway, it was clear what angle the list was coming from when they referred to Sullivan as viewing "virtually everything through a 'gay' prism" (gay in quotes, huh?) and to Hendrick Hertzberg as "having the purest voice in the choir of the East Coast liberals' 'high church'". Hell, it was clear what angle it was coming from when Chris Matthews made it on.
But what really stopped me dead in my tracks was Rachel Maddow's entry:
It's not the fact that they mentioned she's gay. That's fine. I've mentioned it myself when introducing her, usually in the context of "Squeeeeee!" It's just the way they laid it out there--no particular point, just you ought to know--she likes chicks. In the context of the list I'm pretty sure it stands as a liberal credential, just like Andrew Sullivan being gay, Chris Hitchens being an atheist, etc. She's one of those. Gay people are never conservatives, natch (no, Sullivan, you're on the list too, see?).
It makes me shiver.
There are a lot of people on the list who make sense being there--Maddow, Ezra Klein, Michael Pollan, David Shipley, etc. But there are a lot who don't. I find myself concluding that the editors at work here don't understand "liberal" to mean anything other than liking Obama/disagreeing with Bush, and/or having some characteristics (homosexuality, for example) that Joe the Plumber wouldn't like. There's no sense of policy principles or a basic unity of opinion.
Chris Matthews doesn't like Obama because he's a raging liberal; he likes Obama because he's an intellectually shallow TV journalist whose Pavlovian programming responds well to good TV. I think most liberals would be very unhappy to count Chris Hitchens among their ranks, and I think most of the progressive bloggers I read would be unhappy with much of the list. I know Sullivan is pissed to be on it.
I think this is analogous to the Republicans' general problem: they're not thinking in terms of policy, philosophy, or principles. They're thinking in terms of political maneuvering (supporting Bush or Palin, opposing Obama) and culture wars (oh noez, not an ATHEIST!). As a result, they have nothing to offer but poor sarcasm (seriously, guys, at least be funny) and infighting (okay, that's funny). Sullivan wrote at the end of his defense of his own conservatism:
This is an astute way of looking at what's going on now, and I think that's part of why you see people who I would call odd ducks (Sullivan) or moderates (Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum) being put in the liberal column.
Anyway, it was clear what angle the list was coming from when they referred to Sullivan as viewing "virtually everything through a 'gay' prism" (gay in quotes, huh?) and to Hendrick Hertzberg as "having the purest voice in the choir of the East Coast liberals' 'high church'". Hell, it was clear what angle it was coming from when Chris Matthews made it on.
But what really stopped me dead in my tracks was Rachel Maddow's entry:
The presenter of her own MSNBC show, Maddow, a lesbian, has outpaced Keith Olbermann and other colleagues to attract a cultish following hooked on her blunt outsider's perspective.
It's not the fact that they mentioned she's gay. That's fine. I've mentioned it myself when introducing her, usually in the context of "Squeeeeee!" It's just the way they laid it out there--no particular point, just you ought to know--she likes chicks. In the context of the list I'm pretty sure it stands as a liberal credential, just like Andrew Sullivan being gay, Chris Hitchens being an atheist, etc. She's one of those. Gay people are never conservatives, natch (no, Sullivan, you're on the list too, see?).
It makes me shiver.
There are a lot of people on the list who make sense being there--Maddow, Ezra Klein, Michael Pollan, David Shipley, etc. But there are a lot who don't. I find myself concluding that the editors at work here don't understand "liberal" to mean anything other than liking Obama/disagreeing with Bush, and/or having some characteristics (homosexuality, for example) that Joe the Plumber wouldn't like. There's no sense of policy principles or a basic unity of opinion.
Chris Matthews doesn't like Obama because he's a raging liberal; he likes Obama because he's an intellectually shallow TV journalist whose Pavlovian programming responds well to good TV. I think most liberals would be very unhappy to count Chris Hitchens among their ranks, and I think most of the progressive bloggers I read would be unhappy with much of the list. I know Sullivan is pissed to be on it.
I think this is analogous to the Republicans' general problem: they're not thinking in terms of policy, philosophy, or principles. They're thinking in terms of political maneuvering (supporting Bush or Palin, opposing Obama) and culture wars (oh noez, not an ATHEIST!). As a result, they have nothing to offer but poor sarcasm (seriously, guys, at least be funny) and infighting (okay, that's funny). Sullivan wrote at the end of his defense of his own conservatism:
For the record: self-confident political groupings seek converts - look at Obama. Failed and failing political groupings seek to punish and list heretics.
This is an astute way of looking at what's going on now, and I think that's part of why you see people who I would call odd ducks (Sullivan) or moderates (Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum) being put in the liberal column.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
We are not the red states or the blue states but the United states...
Oh lord.
Quotation from Mark Krikorian at The Corner (conservative group blog):
"Even Palin couldn't get me to vote for McCain, but her daughter's pregnancy just reinforces what seems to me a big part of her emotional appeal. It's more than her being a relatively normal person; rather, her family represents vitality and life — the men are virile, the women are fecund — as opposed to the effete, navel-gazing, metrosexual arugula-muncher heading the other ticket. The only downside is that her grandchild won't come before the election."
Emphasis added.
This seemed like a good introduction to a general line of thought I was having, which was:
I cannot identify with the Republican party. I mean, I know Republicans who are totally great people and with whom I can relate. But anyplace where that's a legitimate sentiment is just beyond me. It's not even meant to be condemnational (in this particular instance)--it's that I am generally an extremely empathetic person, I'm all about seeing the other side and putting myself in someone else's shoes, and when I read things like that all I can think is, "What planet are you from?"
Similarly, I've thought to myself a few times about the incredible disparity between the two parties in terms of diversity. Footage from the DNC showed a crowd of great diversity--both genders (I have no idea if anybody there was genderqueer, intersexed, or trans, but all I can go on is what's readily visible), all races and ages. The RNC is a sea of white (while both genders and all ages are represented--although I don't see so many children brought by their parents. I haven't watched as much, though).
What made me sad about this was that Chris Matthews (not that he's known for his great progressivism) referred to the Democratic party as "an incredibly diverse party." No. It's a party that reflects the diversity of the nation it seeks to represent. Rather, the GOP should properly be referred to as " an incredibly homogeneous party." Homogeneity--and in particular white homogeneity, which is the true media definition of unremarkable nondiversity--should not be the default. It's an inaccurate portrayal of the population of this country. (You know if a convention's audience was entirely black, or entirely Asian, it would be remarked upon. An entirely white audience, generally, is not.)
Probably more than the videos looking back on past Republican Presidents and achievements (George H. W. Bush? Really? The guy didn't even win reelection), more than all the sepia tint, more even than the reference to Reagan's having "saved our century" (you can have that one, we'll take this one, kthx) or the age of the Republican nominee, that all-white crowd screams to me that this is the convention of a party of the past.
Not because white people are suddenly going to become the underclass (white supremacists, calm down) or because miscegenation (oh noez!) will make everybody the same lovely shade of latte (weird)--because this country used to be white, by a huge margin. The majority is still white, but most likely only for a few more decades (at which point whites will become the largest minority, or maybe even be eclipsed by Latinos--I don't know, I don't remember the statistics). Either way, this country has never been completely white; and it ceased declaring that it would serve only whites decades ago. How well that change has taken root is a difficult question, although I think few would disagree that there is more to go, and that notwithstanding, Obama's nomination is a huge testament to progress. A perspective that sees and serves only white people is bound to be doomed, and at this rate by sheer force of market share alone the Republican Party as it is now will become obsolete. (This became certain when most Latinos, leaving aside Florida, figured out that GWB and John McCain weren't actually very good friends and started voting Democrat.)
Anyway. Something about that makes me sad too. Not out of love lost for the GOP, certainly; I just, I don't know. I look at all these very white, very classically American people getting so excited at their convention, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me, nor I with them. Partly, as Rachel Maddow indirectly said*, I have the feeling that most of those people wouldn't like me much if they knew me. Partly, we live in two different worlds within one nation.
_____________
*Maddow was talking about the Clintons back in 1992 when she was a fairly apolitical 19-year-old. She was saying that at the time she was glad to know they'd be around for a while, on TV and so on--because it seemed like if they met her, they wouldn't hate her. (What with her being a radical lefty butch dyke and overeducated to boot, and all.)
Actuallly (damn, epic footnote), that more than anything else humanizes the way some conservatives can react to national candidates who are not of their race or economic class (i.e. don't pretend to be of their economic class). Probably that makes me an elitist too. I don't know.
Quotation from Mark Krikorian at The Corner (conservative group blog):
"Even Palin couldn't get me to vote for McCain, but her daughter's pregnancy just reinforces what seems to me a big part of her emotional appeal. It's more than her being a relatively normal person; rather, her family represents vitality and life — the men are virile, the women are fecund — as opposed to the effete, navel-gazing, metrosexual arugula-muncher heading the other ticket. The only downside is that her grandchild won't come before the election."
Emphasis added.
This seemed like a good introduction to a general line of thought I was having, which was:
I cannot identify with the Republican party. I mean, I know Republicans who are totally great people and with whom I can relate. But anyplace where that's a legitimate sentiment is just beyond me. It's not even meant to be condemnational (in this particular instance)--it's that I am generally an extremely empathetic person, I'm all about seeing the other side and putting myself in someone else's shoes, and when I read things like that all I can think is, "What planet are you from?"
Similarly, I've thought to myself a few times about the incredible disparity between the two parties in terms of diversity. Footage from the DNC showed a crowd of great diversity--both genders (I have no idea if anybody there was genderqueer, intersexed, or trans, but all I can go on is what's readily visible), all races and ages. The RNC is a sea of white (while both genders and all ages are represented--although I don't see so many children brought by their parents. I haven't watched as much, though).
What made me sad about this was that Chris Matthews (not that he's known for his great progressivism) referred to the Democratic party as "an incredibly diverse party." No. It's a party that reflects the diversity of the nation it seeks to represent. Rather, the GOP should properly be referred to as " an incredibly homogeneous party." Homogeneity--and in particular white homogeneity, which is the true media definition of unremarkable nondiversity--should not be the default. It's an inaccurate portrayal of the population of this country. (You know if a convention's audience was entirely black, or entirely Asian, it would be remarked upon. An entirely white audience, generally, is not.)
Probably more than the videos looking back on past Republican Presidents and achievements (George H. W. Bush? Really? The guy didn't even win reelection), more than all the sepia tint, more even than the reference to Reagan's having "saved our century" (you can have that one, we'll take this one, kthx) or the age of the Republican nominee, that all-white crowd screams to me that this is the convention of a party of the past.
Not because white people are suddenly going to become the underclass (white supremacists, calm down) or because miscegenation (oh noez!) will make everybody the same lovely shade of latte (weird)--because this country used to be white, by a huge margin. The majority is still white, but most likely only for a few more decades (at which point whites will become the largest minority, or maybe even be eclipsed by Latinos--I don't know, I don't remember the statistics). Either way, this country has never been completely white; and it ceased declaring that it would serve only whites decades ago. How well that change has taken root is a difficult question, although I think few would disagree that there is more to go, and that notwithstanding, Obama's nomination is a huge testament to progress. A perspective that sees and serves only white people is bound to be doomed, and at this rate by sheer force of market share alone the Republican Party as it is now will become obsolete. (This became certain when most Latinos, leaving aside Florida, figured out that GWB and John McCain weren't actually very good friends and started voting Democrat.)
Anyway. Something about that makes me sad too. Not out of love lost for the GOP, certainly; I just, I don't know. I look at all these very white, very classically American people getting so excited at their convention, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me, nor I with them. Partly, as Rachel Maddow indirectly said*, I have the feeling that most of those people wouldn't like me much if they knew me. Partly, we live in two different worlds within one nation.
_____________
*Maddow was talking about the Clintons back in 1992 when she was a fairly apolitical 19-year-old. She was saying that at the time she was glad to know they'd be around for a while, on TV and so on--because it seemed like if they met her, they wouldn't hate her. (What with her being a radical lefty butch dyke and overeducated to boot, and all.)
Actuallly (damn, epic footnote), that more than anything else humanizes the way some conservatives can react to national candidates who are not of their race or economic class (i.e. don't pretend to be of their economic class). Probably that makes me an elitist too. I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
