There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections....
This stuff doesn't win votes anyone because, after all, it's a form of preaching to the choir. Which is fine-the choir needs some sermons. But there's no real upside in lying to the choir. Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.
Er...come again?
Now, I'm not sure where Yglesias' attention is, but it seems to me the 2010 midterms are all about the kind of "apocalyptic" conservative rhetoric Yglesias claims doesn't win elections. Maybe Birtherism hasn't caught on, but you do get the sense that the recent health care reform is going to be judged by rightwing extremist rhetoric - a "socialist" program? -- and don't even get me started on climate change!
That's the thing, when extremist rhetoric is expressed "within mainstream discourse," as Tristero notes, it shifts "acceptable ideas further to the right."
Sure, it's silly to believe Obama wasn't born in this country, but having that idea out there enables "moderates" to declare, with something resembling a straight face, that they take Obama at his word when he says he's a Christian. By any rational standard, that's a wacky thing to say, but compared to out and out Birtherism - which, remember, was deliberately mainstreamed not by a raging lunatic but by the "well-respected" and "intelligent" Lou Dobbs - it's a somewhat reasonable position to hold in re: the "Obama legitimacy controversy."
Essentially that's what I was getting to the other day when I took offense at Sherry Devlin's false dichotomy, pitting "fact" against "opinion." Abandoning the factual integrity on the editorial page opens the door for rightwing extremist rhetoric and the "crazy lie."
Can you think of any "crazy lies" being discussed in mainstream discourse? Obama as socialist? As Kenyan? As Muslim? Health care reform as "socialized medicine"? The Tea Party isn't racist, Obama is? Climate change is a conspiracy theory? I'm sure I could reel off a half-dozen more if I put half a brain towards the exercise. The point here isn't that these are accepted, it's that the crazy lies sow doubt and uncertainty, and suddenly we're not debating Keynesian economics and strategies to extract ourselves from economic recession, we're debating whether Obama's a Muslim - which would grossly irrelevant even if he were. Which he isn't.
Tristero:
One of the most useful techniques in the rightwing repertoire is The Crazy Lie. And we still haven't found any effective riposte to it - or at least, any effective rhetorical counter-strategy that mainstream politicians would be willing to use. Matt's failure to understand how incredibly effective this tactic has been for illiberals, and how debillitating it has been for liberals, is simply astonishing.
This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no serious effort to persuade based on the truth. This is, as far as the right is concerned, about getting power, holding on to power, and extending power.
There's the rub. Republicans are good at treating elections and policy as a game that has winners and losers, and progressives still, for the most part, consider politics as a civic exercise in governing. Yglesias thinks that will enable us to prevail in the future. I wish I were so optomistic.
McDonald's plans to hire about 1,000 people across 600 restaurants in the Pacific-Sierra region, which includes Northern Nevada and California.
The company doesn't have a final estimate yet of how many people took part in the event but several stores were reporting lines this afternoon, said Jake Mossawir, regional spokesman for McDonald's.
While the lines outside of California and Nevada McDonald's restaurants augurs better service at fast-food chains in the West, I'm thinking this isn't a good sign for either the economy or the American worker.
Unemployment continues to hover well above 12 percent in the Sacramento area, and furloughs have cut hours and pay for thousands of state workers. Now, older, experienced workers compete head to head with teens and young adults for part-time positions at fast-food restaurants.
For all their differences, Smith and Giles were drawn to the McDonald's event for the same reason - the possibility of a job with health benefits.
"Medical benefits - that's the big draw right now," Smith said. "I had an allergic reaction to medication. Now I'm in debt for that."
Another strike against the health-care system. When need for insurance pushes overqualified candidates to work for a fast-food chain, that's a problem. Aren't we, as an economy, sacrificing innovation and efficiency by clinging to a broken insurance industry?
Someone passed this article from the Havre Daily News on to me:
Traditional family values are under assault from many sides, a crowd at Havre's Town Square was warned Friday night.
But if people who support traditional values fight vigorously but with civility, they will succeed, said Jeff Laszloffy, the president of the Montana Family Foundation, a group that works closely with national lobbyist Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family....
Laszloffy was especially concerned about the "homosexual agenda," which he said has been embraced by the Montana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU recently filed suit to guarantee same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, short of marriage. An amendment to the Montana constitution, passed by voters in 2004, prohibits gay marriage.
But if the courts rule in favor of the ACLU in this case, the next step will be a lawsuit demanding same-sex marriages, Laszloffy warned.
Despite his strong disagreements with the ACLU on gay rights and other issues, he said it was important that civil dialogue take place. He said he and the president of the Montana ACLU frequently have dinner together, seeking to find common ground.
"Do you know what we agree with the ACLU on?" he said. "Absolutely nothing. But we continue to talk."
He recalled that during the 2004 campaign, he and the ACLU held debates around the state. The last one was held in the liberal bastion of Missoula at University of Montana Law School and was sponsored by the ACLU.
"I didn"t feel a lot of love in that room," he said, laughing.
He said that at the end of the debate, a lesbian came up to him and said "I don't agree with a single thing you said, but thank you for not hating us."
...Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. Unlike heterosexual blacks in 1960, the ban gays suffer under is unconditional and total and effectively offers one word for an entire sector of Americans--Die. For evading that ban means virtual--if not literal-suicide....
...{S}ystemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians.
And opposition to Helena's sex-ed curriculum is, in large part, because students are told gay relationships exist.
Laszloffy's call for "civility" is a bit disingenuous given he supports a policy that would essentially exterminate the people he claims he's not hating. If he really wanted to be civil, he could step aside and let Americans determine the composition and quality of their own personal lives.
Senator Roy Brown has been called out by the national League of Conservation Voters as one of their state office "dirty dozen" -- the organization's highest dishonor.
Why did Roy Brown get called out? He opposed the state's renewable energy standard. He fought for a tax holiday for oil and gas companies, profiting out-of-state corporations while shifting taxes on to Montana homeowners.
Roy's opponent, state Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, will take a notably different approach on this front. Kendall is a lifelong conservationist, a farm kid, a dedicated sportsman, and one of the hardest workers in Montana politics.
A number of folks have emailed me of late asking for advice on where to throw a little spare change in Montana. There are lots of great candidates, but Roy Brown is raising a hell of a lot of money off oil industry interests and his fundraising network from his Governor's race. Kendall needs all the help he can get. Contribute to Kendall today!
Despite Montana's financial health overall being quite strong compared to other states, we face pretty significant unfunded liabilities in our public employee retirement systems -- one for state employees, one for teachers.
Interesting story today, forwarded to me by Eric Feaver, that focuses on a fairly small number of public employees with large pensions while downplaying the more typical numbers. The headline focuses on one retiree who gets over $100,000 from the system, but here's the real nut:
However, for all retirees the mean was $16,484 in the PERS and $22,631 in the TRS and $12,238 for the median in the PERS and $22,546 in the TRS, according to the report.
As Feaver notes, "That's hardly a king's ransom." There are some proposals floating around out there. One is simply to privatize the system, a move that won't address the liabilities of the current system (promises already made) and will simply push risk off on to retirees. We can do that, but we just need to be mindful that any savings that result come from just cutting compensation.
MEA-MFT is promoting a plan to require longer terms of work in the system to qualify for full retirement benefits and some other reforms to make the system work better. I'm not deeply familiar with them, but the state would be wise to work with these stakeholders, not beat up on them.
Separately, the larger question of socking away money (either through large public accounts or private individual accounts) in the stock market as a plan for retirement has its shortfalls. Check out this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the past decade to get a sense of just what might be problematic with relying on the stock market for perpetual growth.
Putting more money into a place that seems to be short on actual investment opportunities of late won't lead to growth. It will lead to more bubbles and more pain as people watch their portfolios collapse. I'm skeptical in general of the value of pushing more people in to 401Ks. Part of Social Security's good sense is to operate as a ponzi scheme that captures long-term productivity gains. We can't run all of our retirement operations like that, but we may need to run more of them.
The longer story has a bit more fodder, including this interesting piece:
In Swandal's TV ad, which began running last week, he notes that he's been criticized for supporting Republican candidates in the past, but then assures viewers that his political opinions have never influenced his decisions as a judge.
The subject of his political contributions hasn't been widely covered, if at all, in the print or broadcast media. The criticism appeared in some left-leaning political blogs, he said.
Here's the thing. Swandal's campaign team -- Brent Mead and Dustin Frost -- is pretty sharp. They're not responding to this criticism. They're elevating it. This is a deliberate play to run for the court as the right-wing candidate.
That tone plays out throughout the piece. It has also strangely put Beth Baker, endorsed by Marc Racicot, firmly into the role of "Democrat" running for the court. At the end of the day, though, I think Baker's decision to campaign in a less partisan, less ideological manner will play better than Swandal's decision to come out hard for a set of ideas rather than for a concept of justice.
There is a difference between commentary and fact - and one of the great dangers in our society today is the blurring of the line between those two. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are not journalists. They are commentators. Sometimes, they intentionally say things that are not true - or that are greatly exaggerated - to make a point. That's all part of their spiel as commentators, and that's fine as long as their readers/viewers/listeners understand that what they are hearing is opinion and not fact.
But Devlin's post is far from "telling it like it is." In fact, Devlin here expresses a fundamental flaw in how the traditional media operates, creating a loophole so large even Rush Limbaugh can slip through.
To wit: the opposite of a "fact" is not "commentary" or "opinion," but "fantasy," "fiction," or "unreality." When the media - and the Missoulian - starts valuing and publishing commentary based on its accuracy and integrity instead of allowing lies and fantasy to thrive on their editorial pages, we'll be much better off.
Instead we are stuck with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Wow, the foul-mouthed Missoula school board member has finally stepped down (excellente!). Hilariously, following her resignation, she blamed her departure on a Missoulian reporter who's "the one who fomented this." 100 Bonus points to Ms. Pickhardt for the dollar word, but let's subtract a few hundred thousand for ducking responsibility.
Just as great, before blaming a reporter for reporting, Ms. Pickhardt apparently sarcastically said that her resignation email was not authentic. She seems like a real mature individual.
Separately, I'll just wonder why Alex Apostle is getting a 20% pay bump. Was it needed for retention? Is Mr. Apostle being so amazing that this was due?
Managers and executives are important. I shouldn't denigrate the discipline too much since I'm one myself. But at the end of the day, education happens in classrooms. We underpay new teachers in this state, but we have expanding management operations.
I've been a critic of hard-and-fast rules regarding classroom spending in the past since I don't think statewide, one-size-fits-all solutions are a good idea. But school boards and administrators need to be working hard to cut fat, move resources into classrooms, and build better schools more efficiently.
For all the bitching I hear about teachers, it is important to remember that these systemic measurements fall on managers and executives. Alex Apostle has laid out some big goals. Let's see if he can hit some targets before we start giving him big dollars.
In the article he wrote for the {American} Prospect's first issue, Schlesinger observed that many people believe politics is about power, while others think it is about image, and he granted there is some truth in both of those views. But in a democracy, he continued, politics is "above all about the search for remedy."
The Democrats will lose ground this year because they've failed to provide economic remedies fast enough. But the long-run problem for Republicans is that remedy is not what they have been offering -- not for health care, for which they barely offer even the pretense of a solution; not for the recession, which their ideas would aggravate; not for immigration, one of several issues they want to exploit without facing up to the facts; not for climate change, which many of them entirely deny; not for energy, where their favorite response, as summed up in the chant, "Drill, baby, drill," was drowned in the Gulf oil spill. Events like the financial collapse and the oil spill keep reminding people that they need a competent and activist government to rein in the market. Unless conservatives abandon ideological fantasy and denial and become a responsible partner in government, progressives will dominate the search for remedy. And if that is what political tug-of-war is all about, we will ultimately win it.
I don't share Starr's optimism that progressive remedies will eventually carry the day. After all, democracy's not even safe. Just a glance at Tea Party rhetoric, where the democratic process is called "tyranny" on the basis of distorted interpretations of 18th-century political theory and accompanied by overt threats of violence - "gather your armies!" - hints at what could be. I could imagine a world where a political party rides right-wing populist racism and xenophobia to elected office...
In short, if there's one lesson I've learned since mucking around in politics, it's that good ideas don't always win the day.
Still Starr's right: only Democrats have actually tried to solve the problems we face, economically, environmentally, and in foreign policy. We may not like the policies they craft in Congress - too slavish towards established institutions and big corporations - but at least they have policies. Don't believe me? Check out this post from Montana PSC candidate Travis Kavulla on global warming:
So what's the solution? Manzi suggests that there is no obvious solution in the here-and-now, and that whatever solution is out there almost certainly has not been invented yet. I agree. Manzi's recipe is investment, not mandates or carbon taxes or the creation of artificial shortages. And I tend to agree that anything that tries to make renewables more competitive by lowering their cost is a much better option as opposed to the self-defeating path of raising the price of carbon-based fuels for only some consumers in only some parts of the world.
So the answer is...do nothing? At least Kavulla acknowledges climate change is real. And it's pathetic, really, that he gets kudos for that, showing as it does how neanderthal most conservatives' views are on the topic.
First of all, Manzi based his do-nothing conclusion on the premise that "global warming...is expected to have only a marginal impact on the world economy." Of course, folks in Montana already know this isn't true. The region's mountain pine beetle infestation is a direct result of climate change, as is the West's prolonged fire season, which accounted for an increase in the federal firefighting budget of about 1.5 billion dollars a year (pdf) from 2000 to 2005. That is, climate change has likely already cost the American taxpayer in excess of 10 billion dollars in firefighting costs alone in the past decade. And that's not even mentioning the hit in tourism revenue, and the health costs and decline of worker productivity due to fire-related air pollution.
And the rise of global temperatures is just beginning. Wait a century.
As for Kavulla and Manzi eschewing a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, which would raise the cost of fossil-fuel-based energy sources, and reliance on white-hat investment into alternative energy technologies, they seem to forget that investment follows incentive. If carbon-emitting energy becomes more expensive, consumers will demand alternative-energy sources and energy efficient homes, cars, and appliances, mass transit and bike lanes, and livable, walkable neighborhoods. The revenue collected from a carbon tax can build the new green infrastructure. And consumers eventually save money by using energy more efficiently, using less of it.
Which is another way of saying there is plenty we can do, right now. We don't have to pawn off the problem onto some unknown, future technology, and force our children and children's children to muster the courage and determination to deal with environmental catastrophe. Some of us have the courage and determination here and now.
Her claim that the curriculum process has been completed behind closed doors is, to be polite, a damn lie. Literate Americans can read Board minutes and attend meetings. At the end of the "interview," Allen-Gailushas even makes it clear that it's her fault for not getting involved earlier:
This has opened me up to needing to pay attention more, whereas I never really thought about it before.
To recap, the Board's public meetings and minutes are tyrannical because Allen-Gailushas didn't pay attention to what was going on.
Allen-Gailushas's reasoning for suing OPI is another demonstration of the keen analytical work of the Tea Party and its citizen lawyers. According to Allen-Gailushas:
Because they're [OPI] at the head of the school district and they have not come in to stop what the school board is doing...
Neither is NATO. Why not sue them? They have about the same level of jurisdiction over local curriculum.
You know, this is startlingly familiar to Tei Nash's outburst against Missoula's anti-discrimination ordinance, isn't it? Gin up some passion over a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the ordinance/curriculum, incorporate it into some wider "culture war," demand the city/county bend its regulations and processes (and the rules of logic) for your complaints, and sue the h*ll out of any government organization who's within arm's reach, all the while complaining about wasted tax money.
Allen-Gailushas' lawsuit is also a nice representation of the conservative Tea Partying. It's all about the Constitution...until the Constitution protects immigrants and Muslims. It's all about government being accountable to the people, unless the people, you know, want to end discrimination against gays and their kids to know about nutrition. It's all about the rule of law, until the rule of law causes poorly written and ill-conceived lawsuits to be tossed from court. It's misplaced rightwing populist ire with racist, homophobic, and xenophobic overtones dressed up as a "movement," and lovingly embraced by a media looking for a clean "he said/she said" dichotomy for its political narrative.
Anyway...keep an eye on Pogie's site. He's obtaining a copy of the lawsuit. Expect hilarity to ensue...
