Our Political Rhetoric Isn’t Too Violent, It’s Too Dumb
You could feel the collective cringe pass through atmosphere long before Pima County Sherrif Clarence Dupnik condemned the level of hostility in political rhetoric surrounding the Arizona assassination this weekend. It hardly took any finger-pointing or moralizing–though plenty of that followed quickly after the event–for the entire nation to become embarrassed about our political culture. Lest anyone think the shame was partisanly felt, there was more than enough bad behavior on all sides.
Over the weekend, the House leadership tacitly confirmed their own shame by postponing the vote on repealing healthcare reform. Better to go dark than risk the ritual display of histrionics which was a smart political move. One that was easily accomplished under the cover of the raging debate over whether the political climate played a role in Jared Loughner’s deranged plotting.
That debate is both legitimate and fairly interesting. Jack Shafer objected to Sherrif Dupnik’s attempt to chill partisan rhetoric which has a long history in the US of extreme positions. Howard Kurtz ham-handedly tried to dismiss the idea that any connection exists between the political vocabulary and acts of the unstable. (Though all he seemed to do was offer a reminder of how many times people have gone off following the precepts of reckless bloviators.) Kurt Anderson dredged up a long ago New York Magazine story by Jacob Weisberg about Oklahoma City and the connection to right-wing rhetoric. James Fallows and George Packer offered two of the more tempered and thoughtful reflections on the nature of political violence.
The upshot of all of this is less about culpability and more about looking at a political position again in light of the horrendous violence. Late Sunday night, a CNN anchor interviewed an unrepentant Libertarian radio-show host, Neal Boortz. The conversation followed a predictable pattern. Even if you don’t see Boortz as a parody of himself, watching the interview reminds us too quickly that ideologues are bores. They bring all discussions back to their one big idea. Forget whether you agree with that idea. The damage is done when the bores distract from thinking about the topic at hand.
The bigger issue with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is not whether they bear responsibility for the deaths in Arizona. (They don’t, by the way. But they should be ashamed of themselves.) The problem is the way they’ve gummed up the political works with their simple-minded and contradictory view of political economy.
A good illustration of this comes from The Economist’s ace writer, Greg Ip, who happened to be attending the American Economics Association annual meeting at the same time that the shootings in Arizona took place. Ip is trying to make sense of the real causes of the economic crisis:
Many of the economists here are quite perplexed at the longevity of poor conditions in parts of the American economy. [...] This whole big narrative, when you step back and look at it, is a pretty complicated story. And it’s not complete. [...] But I do think that we can say a few key things about the way that the crisis developed. One is that it had, at its heart, a broad structural transformation in the global economy that led to an uncomfortable and sustained stagnation in the quality of life of many developed nation workers. And governments have not nearly begun addressing the structural factors contributing to this issue.
[...] And a [another] issue is that the economics profession has not, as it almost certainly assumed that it had, resolved the question of how policymakers should react in a Depression-economics world. Many of the fiscal and monetary policy questions, most of which have a significant political economy aspect, that economists thought were resolved or imagined too unimportant to worry about, are now the subject of intense debate. And while the questions posed by the recent crisis are unlikely to emerge all that often, when they do it is extremely uncomfortable when no clear answers are forthcoming.
No one expects our politicians to have full-blown discussion of how to make policy in a Depression-economics world. But it is their job to translate that debate into a few key positions, expound upon them, defend them and adapt them. Then voters can validate or reject those positions.
Looking at our political climate, can anyone honestly say that we’re groping our way toward a better understanding of the causes of the crisis and the policy response to it?
Politics is messy–and often silly–but the political debate that was scheduled for this week was less about providing an alternative program of reforms to address our troubled economy than with rallying an increasingly irrational base.
Healthcare reform is, at bottom, a response to the economic crisis. It is an attempt to deal with American competitiveness as much as a social welfare program. It might be the right approach to structural reform. It might not be the right way to reform healthcare. But the Tea Party response to it does nothing to articulate an alternative set of answers to Ip’s questions. Therein lies the debasement of our politics.
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
January 10th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Our Political Rhetoric Isn’t Too Violent, –>It’s Too Dumb<—"
This is the core of all evil. It's not only Politicians that are dangerously dumb, it's also daily talking heads and the pundits of all sorts!
January 10th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Remember when a statesman from both sides of the aisle sat down together and crafted a piece of legislation that both sides could live with? Neither side got everything they wanted but they compromised and came up with a law that was beneficial for the greater masses? They were the politicians that rose above the rest and led this country. Where have they gone? I know that all sounds so naive today.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Remember when a statesman from both sides of the aisle would sit down and craft a piece of legislation together that served the greater good? Neither side got everything they wanted but that was the art of compromise at work. I know it seems naive of me but where did these leaders go?
January 10th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I agree that stupidity is a much bigger problem than violent rhetoric. There is no longer an agreement to begin a debate with basic facts. Many participants simply make up their own “fact” and react conclusions based on them. Others create fake “expert” institutions that more or less fabricate or distort facts to fit a predetermined conclusion. We have moved away from focus on policy and everything evolves around politics. The grand old political compromises and debates were based on everybody agreeing on a basic set of facts and then based on that working for what would best serve the country. How can that happen if everybody comes to the table with different and conflicting “facts”. No surprise that the first planned act for the house was a political move to repeal healthcare reform, that had zero chance of changing policy and was all about playing politics to their base – and that political considerations made them change plans.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Great post. @Lariat1: This is precisely what happens in a “winner-take-all” culture. We are “competing” ourselves into oblivion where the “winner” justifies his/her behavior by the end result of “winning”. A vicious cycle that repeats itself.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Yes! I am amazed by the simplicity and lack of candor in arguments on both sides, mostly in the old-media. But he rush by The Left to blame this on Tea Partiers is the height of hypocrisy. To highlight Sarah Palin’ s “sights” on Congressional districts while ignoring that of the Daily Kos, or CNN’s War Room show, or the omnipresent term: “Battleground States” is clearly working towards a political spin agenda. Even President Obama said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” To portray this lunatic as a product of a Tea Party, small-govt mindset is especially disingenuous when one of his favorite books is The Communist Manifesto and his fellow students described him as a pothead Leftist.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
And, therefore, silly little things called “facts” don’t matter. Only “winning” does.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
When you elect representatives who campaign on their intention to destroy government (using fear, racial prejudice, lies, distortions, and violent rhetoric to appeal to their all-too-willing constituents), you can only expect one outcome. As someone once said: It’s impossible for a vegetarian cook to make a good Beef Wellington.
As for the pundit class, they represent the corporatocracy.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
A guest on Meet The Press yesterday mentioned a very important thing about “influence”. My interpretation of what was discussed goes something like this: Years ago, we got our political news information from major networks and heard the ‘political’ news from Walter Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, etc. We were given information and were left to make our own decisions or come to our own conclusions of what we believe. Now, the political ‘talking-heads’ are making millions of dollars INTERPRETING what THEY hear based on THEIR beliefs and then using very negative, even hateful commentary who’s purpose is to influence the masses who listen to them. Most of us just want the truth.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I’m old enough to remember when William F. Buckley had his television show (and it was even on PBS!). While I disagreed with is political philosophy, I admired the way he brought views from all over to his show, listened to them, argued with them, but while his responses could be vituperative, he never condescended to the level we see today. Similarly, we lack the kind of Congressional political leadership that we once had. As others have already posted, there is a mindless focus on winning (without ever defining what winning might be for the American public).
January 10th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Ip is on to something when he explores who and what drives the narrative of modern economics and I think the same is true of politics; perhaps the politicians have been overwhelmed by the voices in media? We are at the tipping point now: politicians who struggled to reduce their ideas to a sound bite have been replaced by those for who the sound bites and policy are interchangeable, useful only for immediate consumption. Tomorrow’s problems can be solved with a new slogan peddled by circus hawkers trying to fill their tents while pointing to the clowns across the street…
January 10th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
‘Many of the economists here are quite perplexed at the longevity of poor conditions in parts of the American economy.’
They would be, with the perplexing handicap of a PhD edumacation. Economic history (Rogoff & Reinhart, et al) shows that the persistence of poor conditions is proportional to the extent of the preceding credit bubble, typically lasting a decade or two after a monster Bubble like the one the US experienced.
So where does the perplexity come from? Because simplistic remedies such as pedal-to-the-metal deficit spending or wildly juicing the monetary base don’t produce an overnight fix?
‘Healthcare reform is, at bottom, a response to the economic crisis.’
I don’t believe that for one minute. The Clintons tried the same thing in 1993-94, long before the current crisis, with the same unhappy result in the succeeding midterm election.
It isn’t ‘reform,’ it’s a quest for partisan advantage via the familiar ‘something for nothing’ wheeze of front-loaded benefits and back-loaded costs. However, several tens of millions of people are going to face paying mandatory health premiums out of their own pockets, which quite properly berserks them.
No, I’m not advocating ‘crosshairs on Congressional districts.’ A district court has ruled that Obamacare is flat-ass unconstitutional. It would be more than sufficient for the Supreme Court to simply slap down the odious health care power grab as an offense against the constitution. Want mandatory heath insurance? No problem — pass a constitutional amendment.
January 10th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
You see it all over this debate too. The “facts” that do not fit a specific predetermined narrative or conclusion are simply ignored, or the source is attacked. “Facts” to support the predetermined narrative are invented or dragged from a distortion of reality. The predetermined conclusion is always “we should do whatever is best for me or mine” and immense efforts go into making the argument that particular action is what is best for the country.
The old model was that we pay smart people to make it their life to study complex little pieces of reality using unbiased scientific methods. When we need facts about a specific thing that is not obvious, we go to these experts to get the facts. There was a credible group of publically funded expert sources who could give the best estimate of reality or simply admit that “we do not know”, or that the issue was still being debated amongst those experts. We then based our decisions on a debate about what these facts indicate about the end result of a number of alternative potential decisions regarding policy.
It is very unfortunate that expertise and “facts” have been polluted by politics, because wrong policy has serious consequences. Decisions that are not based in reality and on real facts are a lot more likely to have bad and unintended consequences.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Inocrrect to state that our political rhetoric is dumb. We’d be better off if it was. It is, instead, effective and harmful.
What we have now is rhetoric that is quite effective at advancing the aims of those producing the rhetoric. The producers are discarding what doesn’t work toward their ends and doing more of what is working.
Think about the prevailing rhetoric today and during the election. We’ve just had massive government spending to keep the economy out of depression after it was nearly wrecked by greedy and careless financiers abetted by lax regulatory oversight. The prevailing rhetoric is for reduced spending, against any strong regulatory powers, and for continued tax reduction for the leaders of the financial industry.
I’d call that damn effective, not dumb.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
We would all be better off if the following people’s shows were cancelled:
Glenn Beck
Keith Olberman
Sean Hannity
Rachel Maddow
Olberman is a hater.
Hannity isn’t very smart.
Maddow is a sarcastic (i won’t fill in the blank)
Beck is an emotional manipulator
January 10th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
There are plenty of alternative plans for healthcare reform that have been proposed by Tea Party members and others, some of which actually have a fair chance of changing the cost dynamic (which most agree Obamacare will not). Unfortunately, none of them got anything close to a fair hearing in the health care “debate” last year. Pelosi and Obama decided how they wanted the “reform” to play out and rammed it into being despite the most vociferous objections by the populace to any issue in the last twenty years.
Maybe you didn’t hear those other ideas above the din. Maybe you don’t like them and don’t want to acknowledge them. Maybe they will get more of a fair hearing now that those opposed to Obamacare are in a position to slow down or halt its implementation. Maybe now we’ll get a real debate about what a consensus reform program looks like and a better discussion of what kind of healthcare entitlement the country can actually afford down the road.
In your view, the Tea Party has “gummed up the works”. That’s your characterization of a principled and vocal opposition to a major restructuring of a significant sector of the economy that was supported by a minority of the country. I call that democracy in action. Could the rhetoric have been tamer, sure, but you are wrong to single out the Tea Party. They are late comers to a political dialog that left Daniel Webster behind long ago and there is blame to be assigned to all segments of the political spectrum.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Facts? Don’t ever allow facts to get in the way. Facts are terribly inconvenient to ideologies. And while most polling shows that most of us may prefer moderate and reasoned positions which lie slightly to the right of center, most of us will willingly accept positions slightly to the left of center. Yet, look what November’s election delivered – an even more polarized Congress than before. Debate? How can debate take place in such a charged environment? Nobody listens. Nobody wants to listen. Nobody wants to roll up their shirtsleeves, look at facts and work on solving problems for the greater good. Instead, we have politicians speaking in generalities in search of good sound bites, increased campaign contributions and an intense interest in satisfying their friendly lobbyists. Alternatives to health care? They exist. I’ve read a number of proposals which were completely ignored by both parties. Same with FinRegs. It’s all “spin, spin, spin.” No wonder everyone in D.C. seems dizzy.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
@Lariat1 : “Remember when a statesman from both sides of the aisle would sit down and craft a piece of legislation together…”
Those were the days when legislation was developed behind closed doors.
An unintended consequence of the “Sunshine Act” of 1976 was to open the process to lobbyists and single-issue zealots who by now have largely taken the process over.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
One of the bigger issues for economists is that, in the majority, they do not understand modern finance.
We saw this quite starkly in the autumn of 2008, when the Fed and various economists for the housing/banking sectors seemed to be shocked at the couplings and linkages between banks and sectors in the debt markets. It is increasingly clear that the field of economics is ignorant the way the financial markets are actually working now.
Witness the befuddlement of economists at the current jobs picture. They cannot understand why the jobs recovery is so slow. Well, when more and more US production is exported to China every year, just where is new job creation going to take place? We have economists telling us that “free trade” is such a wonderful thing, yet there’s rather scant evidence that they understand the consequences of “free trade” with a nation that pays slave wages and uses pegs in the currency market as a trade policy.
Economics, as a field, should be debunked. Economists have little to no predictive skill, and without that they’re not a science, dismal or otherwise. Their predictive powers are on par with the ability of someone who reads Tarot cards or stirs their fingers in chicken guts. Part of cleaning up the political culture in the US should be cleaning out the whack job pseudo-intellectuals hawking economics ideas that have no grounding in reality. On the right, I’d go after the myth of the “free market,” EMH and “free trade.” On the left, I’d go after the idea that all government spending is beneficial Keynesian stimulus and their use of the tax code for social policy.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@Yossarian:
Your comment was the very first time I had ever even heard this quote you attribute to Obama (Obama said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”) I googled it, and find many, many links but so far they all appear to be on right-wing blogs.
It would be poor judgment on Obama’s part to say such a thing as a Presidential candidate (the blogs I could find attributed it to a campaign appearance in Philadelphia during the summer of 2008). But I haven’t yet seen any evidence other than gossip among people who are already disposed to trash Obama non-stop that this statement ever happened.
How confident are you that this isn’t simply an urban legend? Can you offer any proof? Can we try to identify a neutral FACT in this instance? Or will we just stick with the angry shouting?
January 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Political commentary isn’t really about debate and relying on the reasoning abilities of the public anymore, it’s very much become a matter of targeting a small subsection of the population that relates to topics primarily on an emotional level. Take a guy like Glenn Beck for example, the bulk of what the guy says is ridiculous, yet you’ll see plenty of otherwise rational people defending his stance. Why? Because he sells his sincerity on an emotional level, people look at him and say “boy that guy is passionate”. Even though half the time he’s just sobbing like a moron over some non issue. While Keith Olbermann has a much more grounded and reasoned viewpoints, I’d also argue that he largely pedals outrage in the same manner. Everyday it’s the guy looks like he’s his heart is going to explode from whatever endless pool of rage it is that he draws his inspiration from. Jon Stewart took a lot of heat for comparing the two of them at the Rally to Restore Sanity, but it’s true. I don’t expect this to be a popular viewpoint, but I think Matt Taibbi’s recent rise to popularity has also been this same ability to convey outrage and disgust.
When it comes to dumb though Fox News definitely takes the cake. Once again you’ve got Glenn Beck who’s suppose to be some sort of everyman, in the same way that Johnny Drama is on Entourage. Gretchen Carlson has to take the cake though when it comes to just exuding that persona of dumb. Jon Stewart nailed her on that too, she’s basically an extremely bright and talented Stanford graduate who acts like an idiot on TV, probably because it’s non threatening and makes the other two dolts on that morning program look bright by comparison.
Politics is becoming the quintessential race to the bottom. It’s not about what can be done for the country, it’s about how badly the other guy will fuck it all up.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.”
-Cicero, Pro Murena 36 (written 63 B.C.E.)
The guy wrote the book on the art of rhetorical persuasion 2100 years ago. Didn’t save him from getting assassinated and dismembered, though.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“some of which actually have a fair chance of changing the cost dynamic (which most agree Obamacare will not)”
The congressional budget office has calculated that the cost of repealing “Obamacare” will be about $200 billion. However, because this fact did not fit the narrative of the new house majority leader he decided that the COB conclusion should be ignored. Now all the time that the COB concluded that this or that democratic initiative would cost X, he always cited them. So I guess they can only be trusted when they reach the “right” conclusion. That is part of why political debate is so hard these days.
I could list another handful of mis-statements or distortions of facts in your 3 paragraphs but it seems like such a waste of time. How do you even communicate with people living in a parallel reality? Shouting out your frustration?
January 10th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“Witness the befuddlement of economists at the current jobs picture. They cannot understand why the jobs recovery is so slow.”
What befuddlement, most economists that I have seen cited have specific explanations about this, even if some of them disagree with each other. Yes the methodologies used by to many economists are lacking in scientific rigor but there are also some that have been quite good in their predictions. And almost all of them are way better than what some blowiating media clown pulls out of his dumb a$$. There are lots of things that needs improvement in economics as a field, but it is still gives far better guidance on policy than whatever sh!t sounds good.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
You know, I’m a little tired of this “on both sides” nonsense.
In 2010 the Democratic Party passed a healthcare law that, by any sane and objective standard, is a very center or center-right plan. It was built on one passed in Massachusetts by a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature, with the participation of business, hospitals, docs, etc. It’s really similar to a lot of plans that have come out of Cato and/or Heritage, and it’s quite similar to the Republican alternative to the 1993 Clinton plan. While they have issues with specific parts of it, overall it’s been accepted by all mainstream groups affected by it, from pharma to insurance to health providers to businesses (and no, the Chamber’s position doesn’t count). It builds on existing public and private infrastructure. Oh, and the Democrats ticked off a LOT of allies (and opponents) by making tough cuts and instituting new revenue raisers to make this bill deficit-reducing–as opposed to the Republican version of health reform, the Medicare Drug Bill, that adds $500b and rising to the deficit every 10 years. Many iterations of this plan were submitted it to the independent CBO for their best estimates, and based on the estimates they tweaked their plan many, many times to make it cheaper. Oh, and then they asked the CBO make a guesstimate about how the next 20 years looked (even though the CBO doesn’t really do this) just to make sure it really was responsible and not like the Bush tax cuts which only looked responsible because we pretended we’d repeal them in 10 years. Exactly NONE of this is a study in radical governance. It’s the very essence of nerdy, technocratic governing-from-the-center.
And yet mainstream Republicans went insane. They characterized it not just as “socialist” and a “government takeover” but went so far as to lie about specific provisions, saying it had “death panels.” Their most recent VP candidate literally talked about how one provision would force her to go before a government panel and beg for her child’s life. The lies were terrifying and staggering. And we saw a notable increase in violence against people who supported this bill–actions targeting their offices, people targeting their homes, death threats, etc.
Right now, people are deliberately conflating harmless metaphors (“target”, “throw him under the bus,” “take him out,”) with lies about the real-world impact certain laws will have if passed. Sarah Palin is not notable because she made a map with targets–she is notable because she said publicly that Democrats are trying to kill her youngest child! Colorful metaphors and battle language are not dangerous at all–the same way people understand that if you say “f you,” it’s not actually an invitation to have sex, they understand these things are just colorful and aggressive metaphors. But when you put them together with lies about how the government is taking over and there will be rationing and people will die…well, then, these metaphors are a whole lot less metaphorical. Because, cripes, if the government is trying to kill you, doesn’t it make sense to defend yourself?
There’s a real danger when people in positions of authority LIE about the real-world impact of laws. If death is not on the line, it is blatantly dangerous to incite people to believe it is. People do crazy things when death is on the line! Crazy people do crazy things when someone is telling them that there exists an “other side,” and the other side is out to kill them!
And to do it simply because that lie is going to get voters to the polls better than the truth is unconscionable.
THAT is what has happened over the past 2 years. Democrats have put forth center-right policies filled with compromises, and been slammed as literal death-dealing socialists. If you think this will not have violent consequences, you are delusional.
And I think it’s pretty clear in this particular case this guy was a fruitcake who wasn’t particularly politically motivated. But if we’re talking about it, there’s no question it’s overwhelmingly Democratic members of Congress who are getting their gas lines cut at their house, and getting their offices vandalized, and getting phone calls at home threatening their life because of the major piece of legislation they passed. And even if this situation was a lone wolf fruitcake, it’s crazy to pretend the reckless discourse OR the violent political actions are AT ALL equivalent “on both sides.”
January 10th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Good post. I still can’t understand how people can get so emotionally worked up about HCR, on either side. It’s become an “us vs. them” issue, totally divorced from the policy reality of HCR. It’s become symbolic, and this is most obvious in the pathetic attempt to undo it.
Equityval, please tell us the about any Tea Party health care reform plans that are out there. Other the Paul Ryan’s of course.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“…it had, at its heart, a broad structural transformation in the global economy that led to an uncomfortable and sustained stagnation in the quality of life of many developed nation workers.”
A very interesting point and, as he says, one that is not widely understood by economists. The quantity of jobs, skills, engineering, plant construction, etc., etc. that has drained from the US to other destinations in the last two decades is phenomenal.
This is structural change, not cyclical.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Yes, there is plenty of “dumb” on one side of the aisle. How dumb is it to allow any lunatic to easily purchase semiautomatic weapons, designed as killing tools, and then walk around with them concealed? How dumb is it to create a graphic with crosshairs over the locations of political enemies you want to get rid of? How dumb is it to say we have to give enormous tax breaks to the rich so we can fight the deficit? And I would disagree that economists can’t agree on the causes or solutions of our current crisis. Yes, there are disingenuous economists who spread purely political false information on the subject, but the ones who look at the facts have been very clear from before the crisis. Sometimes when there are two sides to an issue and one side is just plain wrong, and a compromise position only makes the correct position worse than it should be.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
@Seth – See PoliticsUSA.com – not a right wing site.
“At a fundraiser in Philadelphia where he was flanked by PA governor Ed Rendell, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, and Sen. Bob Casey, Barack Obama said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
January 10th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Came across an excellent quote from Friedrich Schiller the other day: “Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable — as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead.”
Unfortunately, it applies to politics as much as it does to markets.
Here is my fear: It isn’t just “our” political rhetoric that’s too dumb, it’s the collective maturity level of the human race in general.
There is no true golden age, no ‘way back when’ when men were fair and reasonable. Politics has always been unreasonable, vicious and stupid. We’ve had our moments, but for the most part we’ve bumbled our way through.
Case in point: I just started reading Chris Whalen’s excellent “Inflated,” and in the early pages he describes how a pissed off Nicholas Biddle (second president of the Bank of the United States) tried to derail the entire U.S. economy — and basically succeeded — just to hurt Andrew Jackson! (And you thought modern day backstabbing was bad!)
Like the line from A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth.” Collectively speaking, I not only wonder if we can handle it — I wonder if we can understand it! Maybe it’s like trying to convince a turnip farmer that Rome was falling back in the day. And even if you convinced him, what the hell could he do?
The book that keeps coming to mind is “The Collapse of Complex Societies” by Joseph Tainter. I wonder if one of the reasons all empires have collapsed is because, beyond a certain threshold, the complexity of day-to-day issues reaches a point where the collective maturity does not exist to comprehend what’s actually happening, let alone discuss it — at which point self-interest and tragedy of the commons takes hold and the whole complicated machine just gums up and breaks down.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Sarge@2:56
Yes he said IF they attack with weapons THEN we will bring even bigger weapons. That was a stupid remark in a political climate of stupidity. However, it was a remark about defense not about aggression (attack, reloading). The stupidity is on both sides but the magnitude is far from equal.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Good thoughts, Captain Jack. I think you might be onto something.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
While I don’t disagree with this sentiment, I just wonder if there ever really was a shangri-la of a political bodies with reasonable debate out of some Normal Rockwell painting. My great grandfather and his brothers, God bless them all, were Birchers and some of the things I remember them saying made Glenn Beck look like Sean Penn. It wasn’t of course blasted all over the internet. Now it is a lot easier to find stuff to enrage you on either Daily Kos or Red State as the case may be. Maybe we are just hearing about it more now because of technology, but it was always there.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
The level of discourse is in some ways driven by the
talking heads on MSNBC & FOX. Obermann and Beck are modern
day versions of Howard Beal, screaming like lunatics.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Captain Jack: Good thoughts as well – I’ve not read the Tainter book but did read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond which is a similar theme e.g. what were they thinking when the chopped down the last tree on Easter Island? My summary is that humans were evolved to be short term not long term thinkers. Those ancestors that were really good thinking in the short run were the first to start running when the sabre tooth tiger approached (even if occaisionally that meant you ran off a cliff), and those good at pausing and thinking through things were the last to start running and, well, here we are.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I mentioned reasonable health care alternatives to what was passed in D.C. Here is one which was developed by a group of Democrats and Republicans living, I presume, in Wyoming. It’s based on an article by David Goldhill which appeared in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic. As opposed to puttingt insurance companies or the government in charge of our health care, the goal was to put each of us in charge of our own health care and to lower costs.
http://www.fosterfriess.com/transforming+america/healthcare/articles/articles/20538/
January 10th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@Dedude – “The stupidity is on both sides but the magnitude is far from equal.”
Really? How so? What political leaders on the right have said anything remotely like that? The use of the word target, etc is liberally used by both sides so that is not in contention. If you are referring to pundits then game over. The left is just as guilty as anyone on the right as far as vitriol is concerned. Maybe more so and the examples abound.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“…a broad structural transformation in the global economy
that led to an uncomfortable and sustained stagnation in the
quality of life of many developed nation workers.” Yeah. I got your
structural transformation right here: We deregulated financial
markets, and when the looting began in earnest, we let all the big
gangsters off with a warning. We suffered a terrible attack by
terrorists, and our elected leaders decided the thing to do was to
go to war in the Middle East and scare everybody to death with dire
warnings about terrorists. Then we elected a man who was partly of
African-American descent whose middle name was “Hussein,” and 20%
of us were just plain unable to accept this, and went crazy, aided
and abetted by a “news” network owned by a man who made his mark in
tabloid journalism. Meanwhile, actual journalism was suffocated
under a blanket of priviledge, and forgot what it was there for.
Then the Supreme Court ruled conclusively that Money Talks, so shut
up and listen to it. Now the richest are ever so much richer, and
the rest of us chase our tails wondering whether it really was such
a good idea to let some schizo get a 30-bullet clip for his Glock
without breaking a sweat. Hell of a thing, this structural
transformation stuff.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Theorajones, You nailed it, Bubba. When did it start?
Gingrich’s symbolic representation as a bomb in Doonesbury was
pretty much on target. He’s now convincing people that we are in a
death struggle with Islam for the very important purpose of selling
his books. As far as I know, Roger Ailes hasn’t pulled the trigger
on any liberals. But I’m sure he’d be perfectly comfortable pissing
on their graves.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Forgot to say: Hope the monks are busy inscribing any
useful information for the future because we are headed for a
computerized Dark Age.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Sarge;
Obama was basically trying to reassure his base that if they did a “Dukakis” or “Swift-boaters” on him then he would not just do the typical democratic “lets try to be reasonable and look at facts” thing. Pretty immature rhetoric but about defense not attack. In contrast, pointing out “targets” is not about defense it is about attack. The right wing is not talking about defense because they are not targeted with lies and Swiff-boating sh!t.
“The left is just as guilty as anyone on the right as far as vitriol is concerned. Maybe more so and the examples abound”
Fantastic then it will not be hard for you to make a few links to democratic leaders websites where gunsights are pointed at GOP targets?
I look forward to see them so we can have a reality based debate.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
It is too violent, and it inspires people to violent acts. To say otherwise is apologizing for the vitriol of the right, and it is the right.
Sorry. But this pisses me off. Yes, the right is dumb, too, but we can live with dumb. We can’t live with violent speech that promotes violents and then the “but we didn’t mean it” crap. Enough.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Great post, great comments (whether I agree, or not).
The sound bite and the 2-minute teevee ‘story’ should be outlawed, or revised.
Whether one likes Sarah Palin, dislikes her, or ignores her one of the most interesting things that I observed in the 2008 election was how well she did in short, quick answers — but how scary it was if someone just actually let her talk. When Katie Couric asked her about newspaper reading, she acted offended; that was quite a moment and I think that it’s relevant here.
I’d love to see a lot of politicians – including Palin – **required** to be interviewed on tape for a minimum of two-hour stretches, just as ‘real’ business interviews can continue easily that long.
Sure, people don’t have time to watch all of that content — but the simple act of making a candidate sit in one spot, answering a variety of questions and given five, ten, or twenty minutes per topic would, IMVHO, separate a lot of the wheat from the chaff.
There has always been controversy in politics, but there have not always been semiautomatic weapons. In the heydays of 1774, the firebrands and hotheads could only do just so much damage, and the term ‘keep your powder dry’ was not simply an aphorism.
For people to equate the notion that ‘there’s always been shock talk in politics’ to a time before electricity, before modern weaponry, before the kinds of bombs that people can make today strikes me as a very dangerous, false analogy that breeds no end of trouble.
Here’s where we are today: we allow people who couldn’t sustain argument for two hours gain ‘celebrity’ in 2-minute sound bites. These people can say things that affect people’s sense of what is ‘acceptable’ behavior, and in an era when semiautomatic rifles can kill and injure 25 people (including a judge and a 9 year old) who are standing outside a grocery store, we need some new parameters for social conduct.
We also need a smarter media. Period.
The sound-bite needs to go the way of the candlestick and the horse-drawn chariot; it has outlived its usefulness and is a direct contributor to the stupidity of our so-called national ‘conversation’.
However, as near as I can tell at this point the Shadow Banking System is several magnitudes larger than the real economy, and the amounts leveraged are magnitudes of the Shadow Banking System. The SBS doesn’t give a damn about the viability of legitimate government, and the forces that benefit from the SBS don’t either. For those interests, a nation that gets its info in 2-minute infotainment probably remains a good target for fleecing.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
promotes violent acts, that is.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Dear Mr. Maneker,
This post really reinforces my appreciation for this blog, as I was thinking this as soon as the allegations started. The most listened too “political analysts” are simply out of control. Anything goes as long as it is not too academic or analytical. I think the target map is probably a bit overblown in its relevance to the recent tragedy, but the way is was handled is unbelievable. The target map was explained to not actually be targets, but survey markers. This is after they removed the map (why remove an innocent map). Its not so much the use of the map as them saying its not what is was. Just apologize, vow to remove the map and be more tasteful in the future. Don’t blatantly lie (even though you they can get away with it).
How is it that more of our country not demand less stupid (not too mention ‘conflictually interested’) political analysis. How can so many people just settle for hypocritical, fanatical and simple news? And of course, the people tuned in are the people most effected by the outcome.
Take care,
Vergennes – VT
January 10th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Agree Donna, putting a gun target on specific geographical sites and listing the names of the representatives of those places is promoting violent acts and not something we can live with. People saying that they will defend themselves IF they are attacked is a different story.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“The problem is the way they’ve gummed up the political works with their simple-minded and contradictory view of political economy.”
Here’s the problem: you connect the political class, the media and the general population together via a 24/7 media system capable of sustaining and recording participatory debate from all these sectors and the predictable outcome is consensus gridlock.
The US is a particular case, because it has been a cultural melting pot for three centuries. Its not realistic to expect the same order of magnitude of political accord in the USA that is achieved in Scandinavia or Asia, and even less so now with the internet.
What does this mean for democracy? I have to admit, I have no idea about the answer to that question.
It does seem though that democracy as a system seems to suffer from the same problems as the financial system. That is to say, a problem of scale which exceeds the actually actionable.
January 10th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Let’s
look back 40 years ago and see how it was then, shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
January 10th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Saw this quote from Hannah Arendt somewhere recently but can’t find the source:
“Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.” – Hannah Arendt
There is a difference between heated rhetoric or even general declarations of hatred and incitement to riot or attack specific persons or groups; there are laws against the latter behavior which have been enforced in the case of unpopular individuals (such as a blind, Muslim cleric) but which are in principle enforceable against anyone.
The following is a mere sampling of public statements from prominent conservative political personalities:
…Winning the election may require active exercise of “second amendment” rights by supporters.
…Holding political fundraisers with automatic weapons and target practice on the initials, name or image of a political opponent.
…Telling supporters you want them “armed and dangerous.”
…Creating and distributing campaign posters with your opponent’s head in gun sights.
…Stating that bullets will work (to win for us) if ballots don’t.
These were incitements to force, violence or even murder by well-known, public individuals and, unlike anything I could find from the other side of the aisle, they had a focus on a particular group or person(s); AFAIK that’s a crime and whether it is enforced, or even enforceable against an established public personality, honor demands that it be condemned and personalities engaged in it shunned; at the very least that will sting them in their pocketbooks which, for many, is probably the most appropriate consequence.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I find it funny that it’s taken a mass murder to get people to examine the dangerous rhetoric of the far right. Palin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh ect have made millions by playing on peoples basic fears and biases. Over the last few years they’ve slowly and continuously ratcheted up the rhetoric. If they fail to continuously stoke peoples fear, hatred and paranoia those viewers tune out and the pundits’ wallets suffer. While the right isn’t alone in making over the top statements, if those statements involve violence you can bet it comes from the far right. The right seems to think the founding fathers were a bunch of macho, bible toting thugs who’d kill anyone who disagreed with them, when in fact they were skeptical men of the enlightenment. I have no doubt that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled by the shallow, dimwits we see and hear from the right. While the murderer may not have been directly influenced by Palin’s ad, you’d have to be living under a rock to miss the violent imagery from the right and for that Palin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of their cronies bear responsibility
January 10th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else remember the Conan O’ Brian episode when Alec Baldwin went completely nuts on the subject of politics, then started shouting about how we should murder Henry Hyde?
Couldn’t find the clip, but this is from Baldwin’s wikipedia page:
During his appearance on the comedy late night show Late Night with Conan O’Brien on December 12, 1998, eight days before President Bill Clinton was to be impeached, Baldwin said, “if we were in another country… we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they’re doing to this country.”
So, um… yeah.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I don’t think his outburst influenced anyone….nice try though
January 10th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
@Yossarian- funny how you seek out info stating he’s a
Leftist pothead. Here’s his YouTube as far as I can tell. In his
favorite books he also states he has read Mein Kampf.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 I had favorite books:
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The
Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter
Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One
Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The
Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea,
Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
theorajones @ 2:40 pm nails it.
Sadly, as it emerges that Loughner that was a crazed lone gunman and not a Tea Partier, the more vitriolic among us have chosen not to pause to reflect upon the place we’re arrived. Instead, they’ve taken the opportunity not only to divorce themselves from any portion of any cause/effect equation – ever, but to double-down on the rhetoric.
We’ve already seen the “Why didn’t…” questions start, starting with those directed at the Pima County Sheriff. It’s probably only a matter of time until Giffords herself gets some blame for this.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
We are a country and a culture of violence and we have a government that promotes fear on a domestic and international level. We are a pro-war, pro-occupation and self-serving country that drops bombs on people of color with un-manned drones without declaring war. This tragedy in Arizona will be used to further limit the freedom of speech – most notably domestic criticism of the US government.
On 1/2/2011 two U.S. service members were killed in central Iraq while in support of Operation New Dawn. Did the President and our government have a moment of silence in honor and rememberance of these unnecessary deaths? Since the “war” began on 3/19/2003 there have been a total of 4,432 American casuaties in Iraq. An occupation that has been proven to have nothing to do with 9/11/2001.
Government-created climate of fear
by Glenn Greenwald, January 10, 2011
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear/index.html
The Uses of Political Violence
by Justin Raimondo, January 10, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/01/09/the-uses-of-political-violence/
January 10th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
MikeInSF, the vitriol is displayed courtesy of technology.
This circus wouldn’t have been possible but ten years ago.
So, does the technology provide an outlet for latent vitriol or does it amplify it?
January 10th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
let me list the elephants in the room:
1. Humans are not yet intelligent enough to make any system work(communism, democracy etc.. all of their weakest link, selfish, stupid and irrational humans).
2. Politics over here is a result of religion and race. If obama was a white and supported the few things that religious right wants(abortion and gay marriage to name two) he would have same support as reagan.
me here in deep south…see everyday that how educated people are still married to the right wing agenda…which has its roots in slavery and segregation.
January 10th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
One is that it had, at its heart, a broad structural transformation in the global economy that led to an uncomfortable and sustained stagnation in the quality of life of many developed nation workers.
Regrettably this “fact” is not accepted by everyone – so, to them, everything afterwards is invalid. Finding out that our industrial base was the price for ending abortions, bringing prayer back to public schools and outlawing homosexuality would shatter too many worlds. They paid the price and got nothing in return – and they’re still angry.
And tell me, what were these economists doing when the decision was made to dismantle our manufacturing base and ship it overseas?
January 10th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Who is Alec Baldwin? Does he have his own show on some channel somewhere? or is he a national political figure? I mean we are not discussing random right or left lunatics (Ann Coulter anyone?). We are talking about people with a serious outlet to influence the public (and therefore serious responsibilities for what they say). This desperate trying to show that the left is “just as bad” is getting a little pathetic (and somewhat fun to observe).
January 10th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“Humans are not yet intelligent enough to make any system work”
Absolute rubbish. Look around you and see what has been created since monkey men picked up tools.
We’ve had nuclear weapons for 60 years and we’re all still here.
You are posting this nonsense on a phenomenon of technological innovation.
Get a grip.
January 10th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Finding out that our industrial base was the price for ending abortions, bringing prayer back to public schools and outlawing homosexuality would shatter too many worlds. They paid the price and got nothing in return – and they’re still angry”
I live in the south and have often wondered what would happen if the lower class whites realized how badly they had been screwed by those feeding them false promises of “fixing” social “ills” that cannot be fixed in a free society. Would we get that bat-shit crazy pitchfork revolution, that some of us dream about when we forget what those things are really like.
January 10th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
This is precisely what happens in a “winner-take-all” culture. We are “competing” ourselves into oblivion where the “winner” justifies his/her behavior by the end result of “winning”. A vicious cycle that repeats itself.
Yep, everyone is for survival of the fittest until someone gets a stick in the eye :)
January 10th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Dedude said: “This desperate trying to show that the left is “just as bad” is getting a little pathetic (and somewhat fun to observe).”
I have no stake in defending either “wing,” left or right, but I do think this whole fiasco reflects poorly on those trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The shooter was a nut. In his addled brain he craved reason for a public act of violence. So he seized on some available narratives and wove a nutty tapestry out of them.
And what does this really have to do with Sara “you betcha” Palin at the end of the day? I’d damn say very little. Unless you want to tell me Mark Chapman was inspired to shoot John Lennon after listening to the Beatles’ “Happiness Is a Warm Gun.”
I cited Alec Baldwin as a counter to someone’s rant about how violent the right is. I know Alec Baldwin is no one serious. But I don’t think Sara Palin is either. Is she really going to get elected? Really? No friggin’ way. She’s another media mouth, milking her moment.
And if you guys really DO take the Palin threat seriously, then shame on you for being slacktivists. Your slacktivism consists of popping up to conveniently bitch about a dumb coincidence rooted in Americana gun culture after some nutjob got his 15 minutes of fame on. If you were REALLY concerned about what Palin was doing to the country, or the debilitating influences of the right or whatever, then you would be working to educate misguided right wingers and otherwise taking deliberate steps to seriously take on the creeping right wing base in America. But then, that would actually take hard work and dedication. It’s much easier to just be a slacktivist who says “yeah, the right is so violent!” after some psychotic event happens.
Alec Baldwin’s goofy rant about murdering Henry Hyde isn’t out of place in this “serious” thread. It’s right at home in it. Activism and slacktivism are two very different things, and I don’t take any of you guys (or this much-vaunted “the right is violent” correlation) all that seriously. Not because I’m a right winger (which I’m not), but because it’s all so trivially circumstantial.
January 10th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
DeDude,
Baldwin is one of the thousand or so people that Americans plunk their kids in front of every night in order to put on ‘meaningless’ teleplays. Don’t worry, those little plays are not well designed to etch a worldview into their consciousnesses. They are meaningless…..meaningless! You can trust me on that one. It is why they are paid so much.
Back to sleep please
January 10th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
someone needs to insert a line about synergy into the stream here
January 10th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Here is my take:
Why did this happen?
The recent events in Tuscon, Arizona have shocked this nation once more. Questions are inevitably asked. How could this happen? What makes someone do such a thing? Was this young man crazy? Who sold him the weapons used in this horrific crime? As the story unfolds, it appears that this young man had a history of mental instability. He had apparently been kicked out of college for his behavior, with the stipulation that he get a note from a doctor certifying his sanity, before he could return to school. He had purchased a semi-automatic pistol, and several high capacity magazines for that pistol. The greater issues in this tragedy revolve around gun control, gun registration, and the ability of society to protect itself against unstable people with “weapons of mass destruction”.
The scenes on the television were of the aftermath of the shootings, and moved quickly to focus on the medical personnell providing care for the injured. Surgeons were interviewed and various medical experts were providing commentary on the situation. No one was turned away from the hospital for lack of ability to pay for the care provided. Laws compel hospitals to provide care to all who come to their doors, rightly so, and it is not even considered that those in an emergency will not be provided care.
So the issues in this incident, to me, are about gun control and health care. How does our society prevent unstable people from aquiring the means to cause harm to other members of society? Gun control. Gun registration. And background checks to purchase weapons. This is how we allow ourselves to keep and bear arms, while protecting our familys from crazy people.
But, you say, this young man had no record of mental illness. No,he had never been documented with mental illness. Why? Consider if he had access to a doctor, free of charge from childhood. Perhaps yearly checkups, in addition to the ability to be seen at a clinic when he was ill. Suppose he was part of a system of healthcare that had the long term wellbeing of people in mind. A system that regularly worked to maintain the physical, as well as the mental health of it’s clients. It seems that in such a system a doctor or other health provider would have noticed signs of mental disease, and could have referred this young man to someone who could have helped him long ago. At the very least, if this young man, when asked by a college for a letter attesting to his mental competence, would have most likely went to a doctor and asked for that letter. IF he had easy access to the medical system. IF he had insurance that would provide for that evaluation. In any event, there would be some record of mental instability that could have prevented his buying his weapon. With no changes in gun registration/background check laws.
The gun control debate would fade into the background if it wasn’t for the crazy people that keep killing large numbers of people. This incident was preventable. Incidents like these will not be prevented by private insurance companys. This country needs a public healthcare system that is accessible to all. A single payer system, controlled by “we the people”, who would control the taxes raised, and the money spent, and what it is spent on. A system that is portable and not dependent on an employer. A system that pays for visits to appropriate clinics at any time, day or night. A system that rewards medical practitioners for every patient that seeks help. A system that gives doctors the power to direct a patients care in the best interest of the patient without regard for ability to pay. A system that everyone contributes to. A national sales tax dedicated to a balanced budget health care system controlled by elected representatives would be a democratic way to pay for such a system.
We the people could do this.
January 10th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Common Man;
You mean he is in a children’s show where left wing lunatics kill right wing politicians?
This uncommon dude would love to get a link.
January 10th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Here’s one where Baldwin tries to kill a billionaire: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119051/
I mean, that’s obviously left versus right, isn’t it? The disgruntled employee, rising up against the capitalist oppressor… not a “kids show” maybe, but a movie marketed to teenagers. Close enough?
And speaking of kids’ shows, why are we letting Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck off the hook? Clearly they are advocating extreme violence — including gun violence — against the likes of moral, hard-working, obviously right wing Americans like Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd…
And whoa, what about all those political assassination thrillers where the president’s life is in danger? We gotta lock those guys down before they influence the wrong sleeper cell… shut down Hollywood! For the safety of the nation!
Gee, this whole effort to trace random acts of conspiratorial lunatic violence back to meaningless hand-waving references to already non-controversially violence-soaked broad-based media and pop culture is starting to look damn silly all of a sudden. Who’da thunk it.
January 10th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
You don’t get out to movies much do you Dude?
January 10th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The commentators that call for more civility and less vitriol and then in the next breath link the murders to the tea party prove that their agenda is the height of hypocrisy. By falsely linking the act of a deranged 22 year old to a political agenda, they add to the vitriol and incivility of political dialogue.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=9398
January 10th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I get out to movies, I just don’t stay long enough at the end to read the names of the actors. Nor do I think that the fictional murder of fictional characters is comparable to the real life targeting of real life living politicians. But then I always have lived in the real fact-based world not in a fictional one.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
I read most of the comments on here today, and I agree with almost all of them. The way I see it the blame should be placed squarely on the American Voter. Our voter participation rate is sad ( i.e. 2010 mid term avg voter turnout under 41%, which means less than 21 -22 % decided this election. It is a sad commentary for our country. There are core problems with this country with regards to our overall economy. This is where I disagree about the Tea Party. I have or had several friends who were involved in the Tea Party, but when I questioned them on facts they couldn’t even answer the easy questions ( i.e the 5 largest expeditures in the US budget). (SS Defense, Medicare, Interest on Debt and Medicaid) Yet they complain about the size of the Govt. How do you cut taxes with out cutting spending to offset the cost? Yet they are ok with borrowing money to finance tax cuts. Or where was protest when they passed the Patriot act, and the govt was spying on their own citizens. Is that not big govt at its worse? My point being is most people can’t debate the clears facts any more, they rely on TV , radio , internet etc…. I used to like to debate politics, but know I don’t bother. Because it becomes nasty, ie your a leftest or liberal etc… However I’m not, I’m left of center and sometimes right of center. But it shouldn’t matter because you should be able to debate the facts, and we don’t do this anymore in Washington. We get the facts and distort them to our views. This is the problem. I do not watch the news anymore, and try to get my information from several different places and educate myself. In the end this country is in serious trouble and we have to many ” Sheeple ” voting .
January 10th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I see alot of posts that say, ” the killer was not a Tea Partier”. He may not have been a card carrying member of the Tea party, but he seems to fit the description. A paranoid, gun toting, white skinhead who tried to kill the congresswoman that cast the deciding vote on Obamacare, whose district is marked with crosshairs on Palin’s website. Or was….. until recently withdrawn. He was a nut that was egged on by political calls for ” exercising our 2nd Amendment rights”. This is no co-incidence. stop the denial.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
@SellStop, brilliant.
“Guntoting, skinhead, who was pissed off about government intrustion.” Gee I hate those Left Wingers.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Olbermann/Maddow vs. Beck/Limbaugh
I am sorry, but this equivalency thing just ain’t stroking me the right way.
The left are arrogant and annoying, the right are virtriolic and dangerous.
I can deal with Olbermann and Maddow. Heck, I can deal with Ron Paul because he’s intelligent. I can deal with Bush the 1st because he was intelligent and savvy.
I cannot deal with those pandering to the fringe, who unfortunately are running the show for the Republican party.
The Tree Huggers do not dominate the Left nor do the dicate its agenda.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
I am noting going to blame Palin, (However her words are her words and she will have to defend. ) But the topic proves this point. Here is a copy from Yahoo News with a radio talk show host and a Palin Advocate
“In a subsequent interview with GOP radio host Tammy Bruce, Mansour defended the map. They weren’t gun sights but “surveyor’s symbols,” Bruce suggested, according to Alaska Dispatch, and Mansour agreed. But that contradicted Palin’s own prior characterization of the map’s symbol as a “‘bullseye’ icon. ”
Need I say more: Will most likely be the talking points here on out
January 11th, 2011 at 1:07 am
From the WSJ:
Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
A safe at Mr. Loughner’s home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords’ office thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on your Corner” event in Tucson. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner’s signature, according to an FBI affidavit.
In other words, this guy fixated on his target years ago — well before the “pit bull with lipstick” became a national presence.
So look, here’s the thing. You guys blaming Palin (and the tea party) for this are shooting yourself in the foot with a machine gun (no violent pun intended). First of all, your argument looks really bad — ill thought out and pathetically opportunistic in the extreme. Second of all, you’re playing right into the hands of those you lash out at.
If you want Palin off the national stage, discredit her legitimately. Point out all the reasons why she would be a nightmare of a political leader. Point out her scary and occasionally terrifying lapses of common sense. Make a credible case as to why Palin and the tea partiers are a genuine political threat to America (if that’s what you think).
But for crying out loud, don’t call them MURDERERS. It’s just so dumb! When you call your opponent a murderer, or otherwise insinuate a connection that is obviously a stretch, all you do is vaporize your own credibility. And you reinforce the armaments of Palin, Limbaugh et al who can respond to the left’s vitriol by saying “We don’t need to take these people seriously, they are calling us murderers for God’s sake.”
And they would be right to dismiss such hyperbole, because it really is dumb. In a dialogue and debate there are “berserker” type offensive maneuvers that might feel good to execute, but actually weaken one’s own position — making one look petty and superficial through a poorly conceived attack. Trying to pin Loughner on the wingnuts is just such an occurrence.
But then again, my suspicion here is that a lot of left-wing “the right is so violent” types aren’t actually interested in taking reasoned positions or actually presenting a credible, thoughtful challenge to the politics they disagree with. They just want a chance to rant and bitch about the targets they despise in an emotionally satisfying but emotionally vapid knee-jerk way. Which, in its own way, is no different than the typical white middle class out-of-work truck driver (i.e. Limbaugh listener) who sits on his barstool and entertains vaguely bigoted opinions and thinks he’s a patriot. You’re the Archie Bunkers of the left. Grow up already.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:23 am
@Captain Jack “If you want Palin off the national stage, discredit her legitimately. Point out all the reasons why she would be a nightmare of a political leader. Point out her scary and occasionally terrifying lapses of common sense. Make a credible case as to why Palin and the tea partiers are a genuine political threat to America (if that’s what you think).”
Simple: People that need to show up with guns at political rallies, that use cross-hairs in the their political propaganda, that call for “second amendment” remedies if they don’t win do not deserve and do not belong in any political stage. You call that lapses? Opportunistic? So what. Not like the right wing leaders have not been trying to appeal the worst instincts (racism for example) and ignorance of their supporters. As if Gingrich, Armey, Palin and FOX (to cite a few) are not opportunistic, hyperbolic, offensive and the plethora of adjectives that you are accusing the other side with. Who do you think you are kidding? Grow up already you say? Well, get your head out of the sand because apparently you have been missing a lot. Or is it something else?
January 11th, 2011 at 4:05 am
why be informed – we don’t need to think – we bet on the best person – this representative form government
(even if best is perceived at punchtime 51%-49% on my side of issues)
we are for the most part reduced to White Sox or Cubs and stick with the team – B&W or RWBlue .. debate entails “your cutting down my team” .. whats the weather at the Cubs game today?
January 11th, 2011 at 6:40 am
Captain Jack @ 8:07 PM
So he is not a terrorist but he plays one. Like the “I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV” or is it more likie “I am not a GOP supporter but I shill for them on the TBP debate”.
January 11th, 2011 at 6:41 am
Marion,
A minor point, but perhaps important for the author involved: Greg Ip did not write the Free Exchange post that you link to. Ryan Advent did.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:01 am
Captain Jack @ 1:07 AM;
I have not called Palin a murderer, did anybody else here? However, I am calling for Palin and other right wing politicians and TV/radio hosts with large followings, to carefully consider the consequences of their rhetoric. When you put gunsights on maps with named geographical targets and talk about using second amendment rights (when democracy doesn’t work out for you), then you could push a disturbed individual from the state of obsessing but NOT acting to obsessing AND acting on the obsession. There is no legal responsibility, but that does not absolve you of a moral responsibility for your words.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:25 am
Seems like the same old story of the left accusing the right of their own sins:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2011/01/jaccuse/
Therein lies the debasement of our politics
January 11th, 2011 at 7:57 am
for Capt. Jack.
so Palin is not to be taken seriously?
Strange assessment to make on a past Vice Presidential candidate.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:01 am
You continue to argue a broken paradigm. Let me spell it out for you: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES. They are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests. The lobbyists for these interests write the laws and regulations that are implemented. The media controlled by these interests control the issues and the debate. They split the sheeple apart on these stupid social issues while they rob them blind.
Power and wealth in this country has become WAY to centralized and will continue to do so until something or somebody changes the status quo. You need somebody along the lines of Teddy Roosevelt to come in and bust up what has increasingly become monopolies in various industries and the only way that happens is when the American people get pissed off enough that they consider alternatives.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:30 am
@Dedude:
Yeah man, I’m a huge GOP shrill. That’s why I consider Palin a mouth breather not worthy of being taken seriously, and why I have said repeatedly “a pox on both their houses” and taken the stance repeatedly that our political issues are much more serious than the squabbles of one party versus another.
As previous poster intoned, a great illustration is a picture of an evil-looking uncle sam with a goggle-eyed elephant puppet on his right hand and a goggle-eyed donkey puppet on his left, with the caption beneath: “I want YOU… to believe in the illusion of choice while I retain complete control.”
And as for this: “I am calling for Palin and other right wing politicians and TV/radio hosts with large followings, to carefully consider the consequences of their rhetoric. ”
You know why I react negatively to that? Because that kind of talk runs the risk of falling into the hands of the woman who DOES actually scare me: Janet Napolitano, big sis of homeland security.
Do you know how badly homeland security is itching to clamp down on our rights and civil liberties further? It’s not enough for those guys to be fondling senior citizens’ colostomy bags in airport checkout lines. They want to be on trains… subways… installing greater surveillance levels… bottom line, there is a powerful and growing segment of our government right now with the instincts and inclinations of a police state.
And so when I hear the left making statements like “carefully consider your rhetoric” in an effort to score political points from a senselessly tragic one-off event, I can’t help but fear your implications of censorship and restraint in the name of “security” are playing into the hands of some legitimately frightening forces, versus the bogus threat of ringing your hands over another “lone gunman” nut who was long since set in his path anyway.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:13 am
HEHEHE; amazing how different the legislative agenda is between two parties that have “no difference”. I will agree that they both have served corporate interests much more than they should. But any idiot can take a look at the legislation proposed and opposed by each party and realize that there are some major differences. But that would be a lot more work than shilling for the GOP by pretending that “they are all equally bad”.
Captain Jack; So now we are down to the big bad gobinment police state taking away your rights – I guess the United Nations cannot be far away. GOP shill and fear monger it is (if it walk like a duck and it talks ……). Remember that the thing that allowed Bush to create homeland security and give it this absurd amount of power was, fear.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:31 am
As poor and inadequate as the financial reform bill was, it at least provided a legal framework that will allow government to take over and dismantle companies like AIG and the investment banks, next time their reckless actions precipitate a financial crisis. Without that legislation these companies can again blackmail government saying “either you bail us out or we implode the financial system”. Who voted to prevent such blackmail from being possible again in the future, and who are the obedient little Wall Street pets that want to repeal that legislation and ensure Wall Street against having to pay for its reckless behavior? Yes there is a difference and you can see it as soon as you open your eyes.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Wow. So now I’m a fear monger because the fear mongers give me concern — and apparently “GOP shill” applies to anyone who disagrees with your point of view. Nice repetitive use of ad hominem by the way.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:39 am
“Yes there is a difference and you can see it as soon as you open your eyes.”
The Volcker rule is in the process of being gutted. Why do you think they turfed out the one guy with principles? As for the rest, it’s a hash of watered down bait-and-switch fluff.
If you can’t see that Obama is as deep in the pockets of the financial oligarchy as any old boy GOP corporatist has ever been — and that the Democrats in congress are just as easily manipulable and behind-the-scenes compliant — then you are either willfully obtuse or smoking banana peels. There’s clearly not much more value in interacting here.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Jared was a follower of the Patriot movement. The conspiracy theories he was spouting match up well. That isn’t “tea party”, but it is certainly rightie land.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:24 am
>>> Many of the economists here are quite perplexed at the longevity of poor conditions in parts of the American economy
As austerity in public budgets takes hold, perhaps economists will be given an unforgettable visceral lesson when Big Edumacation offshores their profession to India and China.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:42 am
“There’s clearly not much more value in interacting here”
Agree, I show you the difference and you ignore those facts and suggests there is none. You are classic right wing; start with the conclusion and then ignore and distort facts until you think you have a case. Or when that is to hard then just pull some completely unsubstantiated BS out of your a$$.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
So its official then? Seems like the intellegencia here has carefully wieghed all possible evidence 48 hours in to this tragedy and declared Jared a devout follower of Right Wing idealogy. Therefore, by proxy all Conservatives and right wing pundits have blood on their hands, and we can also agree that any vaguely similar rhetoric from the left was merely a reaction, pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. Glad thats settled.
Furthermore I hope that within the next 48 hours we can now see a package bill introduced in the House that will:
- Outlaw all guns retroactively, including existing licenses, and implement a plan for mandatory surrender and destruction of all firearms
-Abolish all Right Wing radio through a concise Fairness Doctrine
- Severely limit political speech through a Presidential panel assigned to target ‘specific political factions prone to inflammatory rhetoric’
- Create a National Registery of all Tea Party members that tracks their movement, lists them as suspected Terrorists, puts them on a permenant DHS No Fly list and prohibits them from living within 300 yards of a school.
let the national healing process begin.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
@Lugnut…. How predictable. Some one proposes some sensible legislation to restrict the size of pistol magazines in light of recent events and the rightwing reacts with: “outlaw all guns retroactively”…”abolish all Right Wing radio”… “limit political speech” … “reigistery (sic) of all Tea Party members”. Hyperbole much? How about delusions? What tortured paranoid life some live.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Lugnut;
The only thing that is official, is that anybody who can reach that conclusion from the debate here on TBP is a delusional wingnut.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
I guess those studies finding paranoia to be much more prevalent on the right, nailed it.
January 11th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Sorry basquebob, just thought I would jump into the hyperbole pool and swim a lap or 2 with the rest of you guys. Didn’t know my lighthearted obvious sarcasm would fly 50′ over your head, thought it would skim a little closer.
@DeDude – “Delusional wingnut”. Nice! I like labels. Maybe I can have a lapel button made.
My larger point is more universal, cause lets face it the right is just as guilty of this, though you’d never suspect it using this board as a cross section, is that everyone is just using this personal tragedy of a delusional young man killing innocent people as a spring board to further their own agendas and bias.
I’ve yet to see anything yet that definitively points to evidence that this was driven by some overwhelming liberal or conservative agenda that drove this idiot to use a Glock resolve his problems, but it has stopped absolutely no one from projecting their belief that its the fault of every political faction they have a problem with.
Bullshit.
It was Jareds fault. Full stop. That the level of political rhetoric in this country has been ratcheting up steaadily over the past 15 years does not a cause and effect relationship make. Politicians have been killed before, and they will be killed again in the future.
PS my condolences to the families of the killed and injured in this tragedy, since precious little consideration seems to have been accorded them in all of this by the media. Passive aggressive navel gazing appparently serves the primary function of the news media more, it seems. I feel for the little 9 year old girl and her family who wanted to attend because she aspired to be in politics. Tragic.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@Lugnut, plausible deniability, another right wing trait. How Nixonian of you Lugnut. Sarcasm? More like B.S.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
@Theorajones (2:40pm)
Thanks for an excellent summary of what happened on HCR. Obama has pretty consistently sat on the center line and leaned almost to the point of overbalancing towards Republican leaders on the right side of the court. Said Republican leaders have rushed over to the farthest right end of the court and screamed “socialist” (and lot of less coherent nonsense) at him for his trouble.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
“You are classic right wing”
And you are so trapped in your politically themed fantasy-football world that you apparently can’t comprehend the concept of a politically independent point of view even existing, let alone disagreeing with your own.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Plausible Deniability?? Just because your satire meter is broken, don’t come crying to me.
Barry, my apologies for furthering the invectives.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Nice campaign ad by a Democrat. Should we expect more from people running for office Barry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM
~~~
BR: You really cannot see the difference — your cognitive failures are that bad?
He takes DEAD AIM AT CAP AND TRADE — not any legislator, no cross hairs on opponents.
Why do you have a hard time understanding this?
January 11th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Finally something constructive coming out of Fox [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/ailes-to-fox-anchors-tone-it-down/] it’s been forever since I could give them credit for something.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
BR – “not any legislator, no cross hairs on opponents” ? The Palin map did not have cross hairs on her opponents, but crop marks on their DISTRICTS. Look at the graphic, not the Left spin.
It is clear where the major cognitive failing lies. It is believing whatever supports your prejudices. Sarah Palin instigating violence through use of gun sights on her opponent. I will believe and propagate that. If we repeat the lie often enough it will effectively be true.
I bet you hold a few others as well:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2011/01/jaccuse/
It is always a good time to test ones base assumptions.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
BR,
You win. I give up.
January 11th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
First they were “surveyor” marks. Then they were “registration marks”. Now they call them “crop marks”. What next? I guess that is also sarcasm. Talk about cognitive failings. Hint: crop marks and registration marks never go in the middle of the page.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Read:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2011/01/jaccuse/
I accuse you.
I do not believe that you missed the use of caps to emphasize the point was that the cross hairs were on districts not people.
Your response is also manifestly wrong. “crop marks and registration marks never go in the middle of the page”? If you look at the Sarah Palin map or the one the Democrats previously put up you will see that those very same symbols splattered around the page – clearly they can go in the middle of the page if someone places them there. Is something wrong with your PC or monitor that stops you putting them in the middle of the page? I guess that is also sarcasm.
If there is too much linked information on http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2011/01/jaccuse/ for you to assimilate then read the ones on inciting violence, then hang your head in shame.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Barack Obama at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008:
““If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
So does that make Obama and the left complicit in fueling a culture of violence that puts American officials in danger?
No. It goes to show that the whole thrust of this debate is hypocritical and asinine.
On some (if not all) of the most important issues of the day, distinctions of “right” versus “left” are useless. On many (if not all) of the gross abuses and areas of corrupt failing in Washington, Democrats and Republicans are like Coke and Pepsi. And yet there is an overwhelming desire to score points and defend ideological cliques above all else. What is this, high school?
As I said earlier in this same thread, “Here is my fear: It isn’t just “our” political rhetoric that’s too dumb, it’s the collective maturity level of the human race in general.”
Talk about proving that out.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
[...] The best headline I’ve seen thus far read: “Our Political Rhetoric Isn’t Too Violent, It’s Too Dumb.” [...]
January 12th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Watch your dishonest, partisan, pre-determined, data-free, repugnant, opportunist-ghoul narrative go down in flames:
“He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040
~~~
BR: You still cant quite grasp the idea of tone, appropriateness, civility and environment — and what that contributes. Sad.
Media is inescapable, the tone of these debates influences everything from people’s behavior to what they think — you don’t even need to own a tv or radio to be assaulted by the steady barrage — in bars and restaurants, airports, gyms, cabs, etc.
By the way, I know you think the posts are partisan, but the Dems are itching to run against Palin — her stumble helps the GOP and hurts Obama. Emphasizing her failures as a candidate only helps the Republicans.
But that is irrelevant to her contribution — it does not change the fact she is a major source of coarse ugly discourse — the sort of politics that should be beneath this nation. Hit List! Take AIM! Reload! Good luck defending your gal . . .
January 12th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
You think a High School friend — who is friends with this loon anyway? — knows what he was doing in the 5 years since?
You are making conclusive arguments from Facebook postings via Newswer? THATS your evidence?
As BR would say, PUH-leeze
January 12th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I parse Sarah Palin’s use of this term (God help us) as but one more demonstration of the egg salad that completely fills the space between that woman’s ears. This isn’t about politics. She’s just not that bright, and I think she doesn’t actually even know what the term means.
follow-up: My comment above is only intended to impugn her ignorance of the specifically JEWISH understanding of “blood libel” — not the more generic way in which the phrase is sometimes (incorrectly, in my view) used to mean “false accusation.” I do not think she realized that “blood libel” is a painful reference to the specific accusation of Jews murdering Christian children. I did a rabbinical school term paper on the blood libel in 12th-century England so this is a subject of some interest to me.
January 15th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
[...] The best headline I’ve seen thus far read: “Our Political Rhetoric Isn’t Too Violent, It’s Too Dumb.” [...]