California has to shut down all construction and start firing people because Republicans wouldn't raise any taxes.
I understand the rationale that if you really believe less government is better, then being anti-tax isn't just something you play around at until the rubber hits the road and then you have to rush in to save the state. I get that. What I don't get is how the huge numbers of people who are going to lose employment, contractual (construction) or more permanent (20,000 state workers?), and who will decidedly not be absorbed by our ailing economy, is just fine and dandy.
This is one of those things that you see coming but always assume will be averted. It is going to be hard as hell for a Republican to get elected in most of California for the next few cycles if the world makes any sense at all. (Not holding my breath, I'll admit.)
Showing posts with label conservative ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative ideology. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A very important point.
Okay, I'll be honest. Normally Kos (of Daily Kos) pisses me well off; most of the commenters there even more so. There are a couple of regular front page posters I like and every once in a while you get a great diary, but mostly I read it for the poll data.
However, this is one of those times when they manage to come up with a rose.
The point of this article is that for the past 30-40 years (i.e. the conservative movement, which started with Nixon) Republicans, small-government beliefs aside, have deliberately obstructed any real government solutions because people would then gravitate to the Democrats. This is because one of the fundamental principles of the conservative ideology is that government cannot. Government cannot solve your problems. Government cannot provide any workable solution to anything. Government offers you no hope. So don't try.
The post goes on to suggest that the rise of idiotic nonissues (flag pins, etc) has largely been as a result of the spread of this belief. If government can never solve your health care problems, it really doesn't matter what the two candidates say or plan to do; neither of them will ever make a difference. So you might as well vote on who you'd like to have a beer with or who has a funny name.
I have always staunchly believed that good government should fundamentally be about helping people (see John Dewey in The Crisis of Liberalism and, you know, the New Deal), and I have always considered that to be a bastion of liberalism and (in theory) the Democratic party. I have always felt, sometimes on a nonverbal level, that the right is about "freedom from" and the left is about "freedom to", and I know which one I prefer.
However, it never quite occurred to me in this way that Republicans would deliberately stop government from improving people's lives in their own self-interest. Not because they genuinely believed that, say, healthcare reform was impossible through the government and so those dollars should go to letting people buy their own, but because they knew it would probably work and decided that was bad for them. The former is called a disagreement--a disagreement with potentially huge ramifications, but nonetheless a debate in good faith. The other is called craven and shortsighted, a corrupt and self-perpetuating machine to no good purpose.
If you don't believe this is possible, follow the link at the top. Oh, and something to keep in mind--the man who wrote one of the memos that most nakedly demonstrates this? William Kristol. Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times, which is of course a DISGRACEFUL BASTION OF LIBERALISM.
However, this is one of those times when they manage to come up with a rose.
The point of this article is that for the past 30-40 years (i.e. the conservative movement, which started with Nixon) Republicans, small-government beliefs aside, have deliberately obstructed any real government solutions because people would then gravitate to the Democrats. This is because one of the fundamental principles of the conservative ideology is that government cannot. Government cannot solve your problems. Government cannot provide any workable solution to anything. Government offers you no hope. So don't try.
The post goes on to suggest that the rise of idiotic nonissues (flag pins, etc) has largely been as a result of the spread of this belief. If government can never solve your health care problems, it really doesn't matter what the two candidates say or plan to do; neither of them will ever make a difference. So you might as well vote on who you'd like to have a beer with or who has a funny name.
I have always staunchly believed that good government should fundamentally be about helping people (see John Dewey in The Crisis of Liberalism and, you know, the New Deal), and I have always considered that to be a bastion of liberalism and (in theory) the Democratic party. I have always felt, sometimes on a nonverbal level, that the right is about "freedom from" and the left is about "freedom to", and I know which one I prefer.
However, it never quite occurred to me in this way that Republicans would deliberately stop government from improving people's lives in their own self-interest. Not because they genuinely believed that, say, healthcare reform was impossible through the government and so those dollars should go to letting people buy their own, but because they knew it would probably work and decided that was bad for them. The former is called a disagreement--a disagreement with potentially huge ramifications, but nonetheless a debate in good faith. The other is called craven and shortsighted, a corrupt and self-perpetuating machine to no good purpose.
If you don't believe this is possible, follow the link at the top. Oh, and something to keep in mind--the man who wrote one of the memos that most nakedly demonstrates this? William Kristol. Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times, which is of course a DISGRACEFUL BASTION OF LIBERALISM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
