The major media does have a huge problem, but that problem is definitely not liberal bias. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN do not show favoritism for liberals, much less have it in for conservatives.
Add to that, you have Fox News with it's slogans "Fair and Balanced", "We Report, You Decide". This is problematic in two ways. Not only is Fox News not fair and balanced - just look up Media Matters on any given day and you'll see this clearly - the very premises behind these slogans are seriously flawed.
Sometimes it's just as telling what is not said as what is said. And it's telling to me that Fox does not allude to accuracy or being accurate in any of its advertising. Good journalism demands, first and foremost, accuracy, and sometimes, that means not being balanced. It means not constantly bending over backwards to make sure some of those you report on don't cry "Unfair! You're biased!" Does this mean I'm advocating that journalists do nothing but 'hit pieces' on people they don't like? Of course not. I am saying that too often media, in its zeal to be 'objective', 'neutral' and 'unbiased', sacrifices real objectivity, and, as a result, accuracy is the first casualty.
Just displaying everything that anybody can possibly say about a subject, then telling your audience "You decide" is not good journalism. It's stenography. Please stop with this notion that on any given issue, each side has equally or similarly compelling cases to make. The truth does not always lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one party is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes one side has facts, and ample anecdotal evidence to back up its case, while the other relies on spin, distortions, and half-truths to make its case. Good journalism will point this out. It will not play the phony neutrality game.
If John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and others got together to hold a press conference asking "How do you know the earth isn't flat?", would 'fair and balanced' reporting require a headline such as "Earth's shape in question" with the first sentence above the fold reading "Experts for years claimed it to be an irregular sphere, but this theory now has many critics"? Absolutely not! The shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion, but scientific fact. Anyone who denies this is grossly ignorant and/or a crackpot. But, in the parallel universe that demands 'fair and balanced' on everything, the assertions of flat earthers must be seen as equally compelling to the consensus of scientists who devote their lives to studying the topic. And no written or broadcast material is ever to refer to flat earthers as "crackpots" because that is 'unfair', 'unbalanced' and, of course BIASED!
Well, of course it is. Good journalism has a bias. A bias for accuracy and truth. The flat earth example is obviously not something that has happened in the media, but this is where I'm using an absurd example to make a larger point. Many of the big-time media outlets handle issues of great importance this way. And the problem isn't limited to Fox and right-wing AM radio - though they poison the information environment in their own ways. Just watch any Sunday morning interview/roundtable show, and you'll see, time and time again, conservatives make outlandish assertions without being challenged. It's more than that, though. To put the lie to the idea of 'dominant liberal media bias' - on the issue of health care reform, when was the last time you heard an advocate of single payer national health insurance on a major news outlet? When was the last time you heard a serious critic of our nation's militaristic foreign policy? Not just question a particular aspect of our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, but question our military presence in practically every nook and cranny of the globe? When was the last time you heard a call for a return to protectionist trade policies?
The answer is that those who advocate for such things are almost completely sidelined on the Sunday morning shows, and other major outlets. Liberal bias, my ass! The bias is towards misinfo-opinio-tainment (yes, I made that one up). The large media is owned by six large corporations. Do you seriously think that media personalities in their employ are going to challenge corporate power? They'll allow liberalism on their shows, but only a 'respectable' kind - one that doesn't talk back to power. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are well-known and given prime time slots on MSNBC, but those shows won't ever have the gravitas of Meet the Press, This Week, or Face the Nation. And it will be a cold day in hell before independent progressives like Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Marc Steiner, David Sirota, and the like are given a platform on the outlets deemed 'important'.
So, if you want to actually be informed, Olbermann and Maddow are nice, but that's because they rely on sources that actually do the business of journalism. If you want real news, independent outlets, whether on TV (Free Speech TV and Link TV are a couple of examples) on the web, or in print, are highly recommended. You won't get it from the 'bubble headed bleach blond that comes on at 5' as the Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry" put it.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Do I have to take a hard-line stance one way or the other?
Here I'm asking the question on whether or not there should be a playoff tournament for FBS college football (formerly known as Division 1-A, or major college football). My stance: I'm provisionally in favor of it.
Frankly many arguments put forth by the anti-playoff contingent are vapid. Their main argument seems to be that college football has the best regular season in all of sports, and a playoff would just ruin it. One thing they state is that many historically significant regular season games, such as Texas-Arkansas in 1969, USC-UCLA in 1967, Oklahoma-Nebraska in 1987, Michigan-Ohio State in 2006, etc. would lose their luster if we had a playoff. The sense of urgency just wouldn't be there. Maybe they're right about that, but if that happens I frankly wouldn't mourn that loss. Their primary stance is "we already have a playoff. It's called the regular season."
That is pure sophistry. The regular season isn't a playoff. It's more like a combination of a months-long beauty pageant, elimination-style reality TV, and a caste system. Each year about 10 or so teams are anointed as national championship contenders. If those teams turn out to be the best, great! Those teams can certainly lose their anointing with a defeat or two. The problem is, the rest have to work many times as hard to impress the intelligentsia. And if you're not from one of the Big 6 conferences - SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10 or Big East - some voters will give you no shot. There's absolutely nothing you can do to make some voters consider you worthy of being considered one of the top two teams. Some state this openly. Take TCU. The same arguments come up every year. Those teams (this year TCU) play in a weak conference, hence weak schedules, and therefore don't deserve squat. Colin Cowherd actually put it in those exact words: "The little guy doesn't deserve squat!" Had Boise State not lost to Nevada, many would still insist on denying them anything. Don't you see, programs like Boise State and TCU just shouldn't get uppity and need to learn not to forget their place. Then they'll say: there's no way those teams would be undefeated in a conference like the SEC. Maybe not, but are you so sure they'd never fare any better than the middle of their conference? Are you absolutely certain BSU or TCU would get eaten alive in the SEC and finish just slightly ahead of Vanderbilt and Tennessee?
Another argument they trot out is that if we went to a playoff, bowl games would be less meaningful. First of all, many of the pre-New Year's Day bowl games now (and some on or after) don't attract much buzz outside of the participating schools. Who right now arranges their entire schedule around the Insight Bowl or Alamo Bowl? Also keep in mind that playoff proponents usually don't advocate ending these bowl games. Many, myself included, see the value in those games. Players get a chance to do more team bonding, do some sight-seeing, community service, and end their season on a high note. There's no reason why a playoff tournament and bowls for those who don't make it can't co-exist.
Another bit of sophistry is this faux concern about academics. The FCS plus Divisions II, III and the NAIA have a playoff system. Where's your concern over academics for those players? They play 3 or 4 postseason games before a champion is crowned. And this after at least 10 regular season games, so spare me your crocodile tears.
The problematic part is figuring out what kind of system to have. I haven't yet come up with a conclusive opinion on this, hence my provisional support for a playoff.What I don't want to see is a system that's great for us who sit on our couches at home, guzzling beer and stuffing ourselves with munchies but economically infeasible and logistically nightmarish for students, parents and alumni who want to go to the games. Maybe their should be no more than two rounds at neutral sites. Making arrangements to attend one bowl game is problematic enough. Please don't compound that problem any more than what's absolutely unavoidable. If you do proceed to implement a playoff, proceed thoughtfully.
Frankly many arguments put forth by the anti-playoff contingent are vapid. Their main argument seems to be that college football has the best regular season in all of sports, and a playoff would just ruin it. One thing they state is that many historically significant regular season games, such as Texas-Arkansas in 1969, USC-UCLA in 1967, Oklahoma-Nebraska in 1987, Michigan-Ohio State in 2006, etc. would lose their luster if we had a playoff. The sense of urgency just wouldn't be there. Maybe they're right about that, but if that happens I frankly wouldn't mourn that loss. Their primary stance is "we already have a playoff. It's called the regular season."
That is pure sophistry. The regular season isn't a playoff. It's more like a combination of a months-long beauty pageant, elimination-style reality TV, and a caste system. Each year about 10 or so teams are anointed as national championship contenders. If those teams turn out to be the best, great! Those teams can certainly lose their anointing with a defeat or two. The problem is, the rest have to work many times as hard to impress the intelligentsia. And if you're not from one of the Big 6 conferences - SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10 or Big East - some voters will give you no shot. There's absolutely nothing you can do to make some voters consider you worthy of being considered one of the top two teams. Some state this openly. Take TCU. The same arguments come up every year. Those teams (this year TCU) play in a weak conference, hence weak schedules, and therefore don't deserve squat. Colin Cowherd actually put it in those exact words: "The little guy doesn't deserve squat!" Had Boise State not lost to Nevada, many would still insist on denying them anything. Don't you see, programs like Boise State and TCU just shouldn't get uppity and need to learn not to forget their place. Then they'll say: there's no way those teams would be undefeated in a conference like the SEC. Maybe not, but are you so sure they'd never fare any better than the middle of their conference? Are you absolutely certain BSU or TCU would get eaten alive in the SEC and finish just slightly ahead of Vanderbilt and Tennessee?
Another argument they trot out is that if we went to a playoff, bowl games would be less meaningful. First of all, many of the pre-New Year's Day bowl games now (and some on or after) don't attract much buzz outside of the participating schools. Who right now arranges their entire schedule around the Insight Bowl or Alamo Bowl? Also keep in mind that playoff proponents usually don't advocate ending these bowl games. Many, myself included, see the value in those games. Players get a chance to do more team bonding, do some sight-seeing, community service, and end their season on a high note. There's no reason why a playoff tournament and bowls for those who don't make it can't co-exist.
Another bit of sophistry is this faux concern about academics. The FCS plus Divisions II, III and the NAIA have a playoff system. Where's your concern over academics for those players? They play 3 or 4 postseason games before a champion is crowned. And this after at least 10 regular season games, so spare me your crocodile tears.
The problematic part is figuring out what kind of system to have. I haven't yet come up with a conclusive opinion on this, hence my provisional support for a playoff.What I don't want to see is a system that's great for us who sit on our couches at home, guzzling beer and stuffing ourselves with munchies but economically infeasible and logistically nightmarish for students, parents and alumni who want to go to the games. Maybe their should be no more than two rounds at neutral sites. Making arrangements to attend one bowl game is problematic enough. Please don't compound that problem any more than what's absolutely unavoidable. If you do proceed to implement a playoff, proceed thoughtfully.
What persuades people?
I love to discuss ideas. I love thinking about and refining ideas, and learning from others with great ideas. I like the finer points of debate. Not a poo-flinging, pissing contest, but a robust exchange of ideas where each party makes their case but shows a willingness to learn and create more understanding. It's healthy for our political environment, and I think it's a plus for human relations in general.
I'll be honest. I wish more people thought the way I do. And I would get a lot of satisfaction seeing someone come around to my way of thinking. That said, I've found it best to set realistic expectations when it comes to that sort of thing. I used to be hard-right politically and an evangelical Christian. To be fair, some of what changed that was seeing or hearing arguments that blew my assumptions out of the water. But that was far from the main catalyst.
Many people are largely products of their own experiences. Not long after I got out on my own the evangelical Christian worldview just didn't make sense any more, then some time after that atheism - just concluding there's no good reason to believe in any gods until solid evidence or strong logical arguments for them - made the most sense to me. Even after I stopped with the evangelical thing, I still had a kind of absolute belief that people make their own luck and each of us needs to just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
After moving back to my home state and losing jobs twice in a relatively short span, my previous assumptions about self-reliance and rugged individualism started to dissipate as well. I then saw the value of a strong social safety net. My resolve to never accept any form of public assistance started to appear to me like nothing more than grandstanding once I saw that stubbornly keeping that stance wouldn't just effect me, but my spouse too. Being at jobs where the employee base isn't predominately white made me see some of my own ignorance as well.
I see so many people cling to conservative beliefs on economic and social issues, and a great deal of these folks are ones who are themselves hurting. So it often mystifies me that those people seemingly refuse to see what's staring them in the face but continue to swallow the lies such as "trickle-down economics" or the lie that the key to prosperity is to let the "free market" to its own devices. But then I have to remember that I let go of those notions only after first stubbornly clinging to those myself.
The last thing I want is for people to experience a crisis that threatens their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. I don't even want hard-core conservatives to face that. Especially when children are involved. On the other hand, I wonder if it may take something like that to look at issues like taxes, economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. a little differently. In many cases I'll have to accept that I can argue my perspective until I'm blue in the face (and will sometimes continue to do so), but people often come to different conclusions on their own. We can only make our own points so much, but then at some point need to let go and allow others to make their own conclusions. We'll have to accept that if people come around, they'll do it more or less on their own terms. I'll have to accept that experience is often the greatest teacher for others as well as me.
The same thing applies when it comes to the question of religion and gods. Again, I won't hide the fact that I wish fewer people believed in gods. But I've come to accept that it's OK to argue your point on this as well, but after that, let people have their own opinions. And I'd rather people first develop the habits of critical thinking, the habits of questioning their own assumptions as well as what they're told by people they trust. I have no delusions that me making one argument against a particular religious belief will cause someone to say "Oh! How could I have been such a fool?! Now I see that there's no good reason to believe in God. I'm atheist now." There's even a good chance that if it happens that way they're doing it all wrong.
What I do hope to accomplish, in the short term, by expressing my ideas, is to challenge assumptions. To get people to be willing to question their own assumptions (just as I need to be willing to question mine), to sometimes be willing to soften their stances. This holds true regardless of the subject matter.
I'll be honest. I wish more people thought the way I do. And I would get a lot of satisfaction seeing someone come around to my way of thinking. That said, I've found it best to set realistic expectations when it comes to that sort of thing. I used to be hard-right politically and an evangelical Christian. To be fair, some of what changed that was seeing or hearing arguments that blew my assumptions out of the water. But that was far from the main catalyst.
Many people are largely products of their own experiences. Not long after I got out on my own the evangelical Christian worldview just didn't make sense any more, then some time after that atheism - just concluding there's no good reason to believe in any gods until solid evidence or strong logical arguments for them - made the most sense to me. Even after I stopped with the evangelical thing, I still had a kind of absolute belief that people make their own luck and each of us needs to just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
After moving back to my home state and losing jobs twice in a relatively short span, my previous assumptions about self-reliance and rugged individualism started to dissipate as well. I then saw the value of a strong social safety net. My resolve to never accept any form of public assistance started to appear to me like nothing more than grandstanding once I saw that stubbornly keeping that stance wouldn't just effect me, but my spouse too. Being at jobs where the employee base isn't predominately white made me see some of my own ignorance as well.
I see so many people cling to conservative beliefs on economic and social issues, and a great deal of these folks are ones who are themselves hurting. So it often mystifies me that those people seemingly refuse to see what's staring them in the face but continue to swallow the lies such as "trickle-down economics" or the lie that the key to prosperity is to let the "free market" to its own devices. But then I have to remember that I let go of those notions only after first stubbornly clinging to those myself.
The last thing I want is for people to experience a crisis that threatens their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. I don't even want hard-core conservatives to face that. Especially when children are involved. On the other hand, I wonder if it may take something like that to look at issues like taxes, economic stimulus, health care reform, etc. a little differently. In many cases I'll have to accept that I can argue my perspective until I'm blue in the face (and will sometimes continue to do so), but people often come to different conclusions on their own. We can only make our own points so much, but then at some point need to let go and allow others to make their own conclusions. We'll have to accept that if people come around, they'll do it more or less on their own terms. I'll have to accept that experience is often the greatest teacher for others as well as me.
The same thing applies when it comes to the question of religion and gods. Again, I won't hide the fact that I wish fewer people believed in gods. But I've come to accept that it's OK to argue your point on this as well, but after that, let people have their own opinions. And I'd rather people first develop the habits of critical thinking, the habits of questioning their own assumptions as well as what they're told by people they trust. I have no delusions that me making one argument against a particular religious belief will cause someone to say "Oh! How could I have been such a fool?! Now I see that there's no good reason to believe in God. I'm atheist now." There's even a good chance that if it happens that way they're doing it all wrong.
What I do hope to accomplish, in the short term, by expressing my ideas, is to challenge assumptions. To get people to be willing to question their own assumptions (just as I need to be willing to question mine), to sometimes be willing to soften their stances. This holds true regardless of the subject matter.
Back to Obama and his capitulations
My last entry was cross posted as a Daily Kos diary. It only received 4 comments (no biggie) but one struck me. The commenter wrote:
The commenter was challenging this from me: "The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure."
But that comment illustrated my point perfectly. At the first sign of stiff opposition, Obama goes into capitulation mode. He shows no willingness to force the other side's hand. Good negotiation requires you to be willing to concede a little, but not to take your key principles off of the table before serious discussions even begin. Aren't at least some of your values worth fighting for? Did any of us expect the opposition to say "OK, Democrats. You're the majority. Have your way"?
This of course, doesn't just speak to his handling of the health insurance issue, but now, the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts. And when push comes to shove, President Obama shows where his priorities seem to be. Get tough with your base for being "sanctimonious purists" and "whiners". But don't bother showing any intestinal fortitude when dealing with Republicans. All the while act like you've accomplished some great victory. I'm not even sure it's appropriate to call it a pyrrhic victory. A very similar thing happened as the health care bill was finalizing. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill on principle due to it not being nearly strong enough reform. Instead of Obama pressuring Republicans to make some concessions - after all, Democrats had majorities in both houses, he went to Kucinich's district in order to pressure him to vote for the bill which mandates that all have health insurance, but mandates everyone be a customer of a private, for-profit company. Kucinich eventually agreed, but it shows once again Obama's unwillingness to stand by anything he campaigned on.
I have zero evidence of this, and suggesting this is, I fully acknowledge, nothing more than wild speculation. But often I can't help but wonder if some folks got a hold of President Obama some time back, and told him, more or less "If you know what's good for you, you'll remember which side your bread is buttered on. You forget this to your peril. In fact, if you do forget this, being a one-term President will be the least of your worries." Or, as I saw from another comment, did some people get a hold of him and ask "How much do you really want to be like JFK?"
"I believe that the PO was traded away early on, and that pretty much anyone in the room knew that insurance companies would have blitzed with an ad campaign that would have stopped the entire process cold. That's a really cynical view, I fully realize. The deal with pharma was about stopping that special interest (one with plenty of ready cash on hand as well, due to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004) to throw in with the opposition as well. It's exactly why they were invited to the table, while others trying to make the case for any government run health insurance plan at all were pointedly kept out. (Somewhere in the dkos archives, I believe, that little episode is documented.)
In other words, the politics of the thing was just as important a consideration throughout as the policy. There were several lines that policymakers dared not cross, and that compromised the entire notion of reform. Which is why I get so very annoyed by anyone here trying to make me believe that PPACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Too late now to change anything, and we're stuck with very pricey RomneyCare for all."
The commenter was challenging this from me: "The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure."
But that comment illustrated my point perfectly. At the first sign of stiff opposition, Obama goes into capitulation mode. He shows no willingness to force the other side's hand. Good negotiation requires you to be willing to concede a little, but not to take your key principles off of the table before serious discussions even begin. Aren't at least some of your values worth fighting for? Did any of us expect the opposition to say "OK, Democrats. You're the majority. Have your way"?
This of course, doesn't just speak to his handling of the health insurance issue, but now, the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts. And when push comes to shove, President Obama shows where his priorities seem to be. Get tough with your base for being "sanctimonious purists" and "whiners". But don't bother showing any intestinal fortitude when dealing with Republicans. All the while act like you've accomplished some great victory. I'm not even sure it's appropriate to call it a pyrrhic victory. A very similar thing happened as the health care bill was finalizing. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich threatened to vote against the bill on principle due to it not being nearly strong enough reform. Instead of Obama pressuring Republicans to make some concessions - after all, Democrats had majorities in both houses, he went to Kucinich's district in order to pressure him to vote for the bill which mandates that all have health insurance, but mandates everyone be a customer of a private, for-profit company. Kucinich eventually agreed, but it shows once again Obama's unwillingness to stand by anything he campaigned on.
I have zero evidence of this, and suggesting this is, I fully acknowledge, nothing more than wild speculation. But often I can't help but wonder if some folks got a hold of President Obama some time back, and told him, more or less "If you know what's good for you, you'll remember which side your bread is buttered on. You forget this to your peril. In fact, if you do forget this, being a one-term President will be the least of your worries." Or, as I saw from another comment, did some people get a hold of him and ask "How much do you really want to be like JFK?"
Sunday, November 14, 2010
It's almost been two weeks, but
But I haven't taken an opportunity to post in a while, so I will still take this opportunity to assess what happened on November 2, when Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives, lost several U.S. Senate seats, and more governorships. Here I want to speak as a progressive, to other progressives, but those who aren't are welcome to read and comment.
Some in the progressive community blame President Obama and the feckless congressional leadership. Others blame rank and file progressives who rested on their laurels after Obama was elected two years ago. I say both are right. At first glance it might seem like I'm just vacillating, but I don't see it that way.
Many Democrats and/or progressives seemed to act as if their work was done on November 4, 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President and had substantial Democratic majorities in both houses to go with it. Obama did say, many times over "Make me do it!" How many of us did, even once? I'm as guilty as anyone in not getting off of my ass to do the necessary dirty work of citizenship, spending too much time in my own home entertainment (internet or TV) silo. It's not just something you do in an even-numbered year, much less a year divisible by four. We need to start looking at citizenship as a full-time activity. Sure we have our families, jobs, hobbies, etc. and we certainly shouldn't sacrifice the first two, but, damnit! Sitting on our asses and letting others do the work is a luxury we lost a long time ago (if we ever had it). The problems facing us require much more focus and much more of a sense of urgency.
Whether or not these I'm alluding to are actually progressive is beside the point. Some of them became sycophantic.Many of these who call themselves that were too willing to accept whatever legislation came down the pike as advertised. All sorts of rationalizations were given for the weak sauce known as 'health care reform', 'financial regulatory reform', and, worse, for executive and legislative inaction on pressing issues such as immigration reform, environmental policy, the two wars, etc. Many of them made excuses for feckless Democratic leadership because, well, they weren't those crazy Republican Teabaggers.
Some of these same folks, or maybe others, stayed home this past November 2. Look up the 'enthusiasm gap'. In one sense I can empathize with those who did. Obama, in particular, didn't even try to do what he promised to do, and in some cases, did the exact opposite. Still, people need to constantly remind themselves that elections always have consequences. Many candidates with a 'D' after their names did not inspire much enthusiasm, but, like it or not, sometimes citizenship means sending to office a candidate we might consider mediocre or even below average to prevent someone we consider batshit crazy from getting in. Who knows if a Supreme Court vacancy will come before us in the next two years? Democratic Presidents may not necessarily nominate someone the caliber of Thurgood Marshall or Sonya Sotomayor, but they certainly will not nominate a Sam Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. And the nominees a Democratic President are much more likely to pass through when he has a Democratic Senate to work with. So, in at least that regard, sometimes voting the person does take a back seat to voting the party.
While rank and file Democrats and progressives could have done more, the leadership needs to be taken to task as well, if not more. Make no mistake, I like President Obama. Some of the stuff he brings to the table is a refreshing change from the previous 8 years. We actually have an intellectually curious person occupying the Oval Office. The two times his conferences with congressional leadership were televised, he talked circles around them. And he has accomplished some good things, such as preventing an outright economic disaster, and the Lily Ledbetter law. Also, the attacks on him by Republicans and/or conservatives were juvenile, racist, or some combination of both. As is typical, their attacks on people they don't like are based on nothing more than what they pull out of their own asses.
But in so many ways he has disappointed me. And, frankly, I'm sick of people making excuses for him. I'm sick of commenters on Daily Kos finger-wagging us to death about standing behind our President. I still support him and want him to succeed, but for Chrissakes, in being an apologist for his disappointments, you're putting words in our mouths. My disappointment with Obama and many in Congress isn't that they failed to return America to an economic land of milk and honey in two years. We fully realize that Bush and his ilk spent eight years taking a giant shit on the place, and many of the problems we face have their roots in the Reagan years, or even earlier. My disappointment isn't that he didn't accomplish everything he said he set out to do. No progressive I've seen or heard ever said or implied that, so please stop attributing that to us.
I'm sure that many who voted (and possibly campaigned) for Obama and are now frustrated can speak for themselves, but I have my reasons for my frustrations. Single-payer health care was off the table. Obama campaigned for a public option, but preemptively surrendered that before the debate ever began in earnest. That much is verifiable fact. Even worse, they would have us believe that they didn't push for it because they "didn't have the votes". The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure. They just assumed and asserted it. Add to that his inaction or half-assed measures dealing with the BP fiasco, Wall Street/banker corruption, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, Guantanamo, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", gay marriage, green jobs, tax policy, etc. and it's clear who is running the show, and who has Obama's ear. It's also clear who has the ears of many congressional Democrats, and it certainly isn't We the People. Add to that their advertising their half-measures as historic victories and, oddly enough, not campaigning on them, and they wonder why they lost so badly?
To make matters worse, those of us who worked our asses off to elect Obama were slapped in the face several times, and basically told to remember our place. From Rahm Emanuel referring to progressives as "fucking retarded", to Obama telling his base to "stop whining", they showed their eagerness to get our votes but shove us aside once in office.
With all of this, they shouldn't be surprised that many people who voted in 2008 stayed home this last November 2. The most important thing moving forward is for each of us involved to rededicate ourselves to pushing the progressive agenda. Now, more than ever, we need all hands on deck. Plenty of blame has gone around, including in this blog post, but now we need to get off the couch, roll our sleeves up, and once again do the dirty, oftentimes unglamorous work of citizenship.
Some in the progressive community blame President Obama and the feckless congressional leadership. Others blame rank and file progressives who rested on their laurels after Obama was elected two years ago. I say both are right. At first glance it might seem like I'm just vacillating, but I don't see it that way.
Many Democrats and/or progressives seemed to act as if their work was done on November 4, 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President and had substantial Democratic majorities in both houses to go with it. Obama did say, many times over "Make me do it!" How many of us did, even once? I'm as guilty as anyone in not getting off of my ass to do the necessary dirty work of citizenship, spending too much time in my own home entertainment (internet or TV) silo. It's not just something you do in an even-numbered year, much less a year divisible by four. We need to start looking at citizenship as a full-time activity. Sure we have our families, jobs, hobbies, etc. and we certainly shouldn't sacrifice the first two, but, damnit! Sitting on our asses and letting others do the work is a luxury we lost a long time ago (if we ever had it). The problems facing us require much more focus and much more of a sense of urgency.
Whether or not these I'm alluding to are actually progressive is beside the point. Some of them became sycophantic.Many of these who call themselves that were too willing to accept whatever legislation came down the pike as advertised. All sorts of rationalizations were given for the weak sauce known as 'health care reform', 'financial regulatory reform', and, worse, for executive and legislative inaction on pressing issues such as immigration reform, environmental policy, the two wars, etc. Many of them made excuses for feckless Democratic leadership because, well, they weren't those crazy Republican Teabaggers.
Some of these same folks, or maybe others, stayed home this past November 2. Look up the 'enthusiasm gap'. In one sense I can empathize with those who did. Obama, in particular, didn't even try to do what he promised to do, and in some cases, did the exact opposite. Still, people need to constantly remind themselves that elections always have consequences. Many candidates with a 'D' after their names did not inspire much enthusiasm, but, like it or not, sometimes citizenship means sending to office a candidate we might consider mediocre or even below average to prevent someone we consider batshit crazy from getting in. Who knows if a Supreme Court vacancy will come before us in the next two years? Democratic Presidents may not necessarily nominate someone the caliber of Thurgood Marshall or Sonya Sotomayor, but they certainly will not nominate a Sam Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. And the nominees a Democratic President are much more likely to pass through when he has a Democratic Senate to work with. So, in at least that regard, sometimes voting the person does take a back seat to voting the party.
While rank and file Democrats and progressives could have done more, the leadership needs to be taken to task as well, if not more. Make no mistake, I like President Obama. Some of the stuff he brings to the table is a refreshing change from the previous 8 years. We actually have an intellectually curious person occupying the Oval Office. The two times his conferences with congressional leadership were televised, he talked circles around them. And he has accomplished some good things, such as preventing an outright economic disaster, and the Lily Ledbetter law. Also, the attacks on him by Republicans and/or conservatives were juvenile, racist, or some combination of both. As is typical, their attacks on people they don't like are based on nothing more than what they pull out of their own asses.
But in so many ways he has disappointed me. And, frankly, I'm sick of people making excuses for him. I'm sick of commenters on Daily Kos finger-wagging us to death about standing behind our President. I still support him and want him to succeed, but for Chrissakes, in being an apologist for his disappointments, you're putting words in our mouths. My disappointment with Obama and many in Congress isn't that they failed to return America to an economic land of milk and honey in two years. We fully realize that Bush and his ilk spent eight years taking a giant shit on the place, and many of the problems we face have their roots in the Reagan years, or even earlier. My disappointment isn't that he didn't accomplish everything he said he set out to do. No progressive I've seen or heard ever said or implied that, so please stop attributing that to us.
I'm sure that many who voted (and possibly campaigned) for Obama and are now frustrated can speak for themselves, but I have my reasons for my frustrations. Single-payer health care was off the table. Obama campaigned for a public option, but preemptively surrendered that before the debate ever began in earnest. That much is verifiable fact. Even worse, they would have us believe that they didn't push for it because they "didn't have the votes". The Administration just decided, without even trying to verify if it was true, that the public option was a non-starter in the battle for health insurance reform because it wouldn't pass the Senate. They didn't know this for sure. They just assumed and asserted it. Add to that his inaction or half-assed measures dealing with the BP fiasco, Wall Street/banker corruption, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, Guantanamo, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", gay marriage, green jobs, tax policy, etc. and it's clear who is running the show, and who has Obama's ear. It's also clear who has the ears of many congressional Democrats, and it certainly isn't We the People. Add to that their advertising their half-measures as historic victories and, oddly enough, not campaigning on them, and they wonder why they lost so badly?
To make matters worse, those of us who worked our asses off to elect Obama were slapped in the face several times, and basically told to remember our place. From Rahm Emanuel referring to progressives as "fucking retarded", to Obama telling his base to "stop whining", they showed their eagerness to get our votes but shove us aside once in office.
With all of this, they shouldn't be surprised that many people who voted in 2008 stayed home this last November 2. The most important thing moving forward is for each of us involved to rededicate ourselves to pushing the progressive agenda. Now, more than ever, we need all hands on deck. Plenty of blame has gone around, including in this blog post, but now we need to get off the couch, roll our sleeves up, and once again do the dirty, oftentimes unglamorous work of citizenship.
Another way of looking at individualism
What does the word mean? To many, it has come to mean "I've got mine, screw everyone else. If you don't have yours it's your own damn fault." People of all stripes decry it as part of what ails us, but can we all agree that when it comes to individualism, there's a good kind and a bad kind?
The bad kind is pretty much summed up in the last paragraph. But extrapolation is necessary. It shows itself in members of sports teams who only care about their own stats, their own numbers, and don't give a shit about wins and losses. It shows in people who assert they shouldn't have to pay any taxes for education because they don't have, or no longer have, any children who are in school. It shows in people who assert that they work their asses off for their income, so they shouldn't have to pay any damn taxes, especially when some of them go to people who, apparently, don't work as hard as they do (and they know this how?). And in some cases it has shown itself in people who assert that a Wendy's store manager should be able to keep non-whites out of that establishment because it's his own property to do with as he pleases. The type of individualism I'm describing here is summed up in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
With that in mind, maybe the best word to describe this isn't individualism, but self-centeredness. Does that mean that individualism, in all of it's forms, should be shunned? I say no.
We humans are a social species, but we are not cogs in a machine. Sometimes when you hear people who rail against 'radical individualism' you're hearing what you need to, but at other times you're hearing someone who has an agenda - and that often involves exploiting people. An absence of any and all regards to individualism, or individuality, creates a stifling environment where not unity, but strict uniformity, is enforced. Dissent, questioning authority, etc. is not putting yourself above the group. Often it's necessary to prevent the group from disintegrating.
Collectives are strongest when they treat their individuals well.
The bad kind is pretty much summed up in the last paragraph. But extrapolation is necessary. It shows itself in members of sports teams who only care about their own stats, their own numbers, and don't give a shit about wins and losses. It shows in people who assert they shouldn't have to pay any taxes for education because they don't have, or no longer have, any children who are in school. It shows in people who assert that they work their asses off for their income, so they shouldn't have to pay any damn taxes, especially when some of them go to people who, apparently, don't work as hard as they do (and they know this how?). And in some cases it has shown itself in people who assert that a Wendy's store manager should be able to keep non-whites out of that establishment because it's his own property to do with as he pleases. The type of individualism I'm describing here is summed up in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
With that in mind, maybe the best word to describe this isn't individualism, but self-centeredness. Does that mean that individualism, in all of it's forms, should be shunned? I say no.
We humans are a social species, but we are not cogs in a machine. Sometimes when you hear people who rail against 'radical individualism' you're hearing what you need to, but at other times you're hearing someone who has an agenda - and that often involves exploiting people. An absence of any and all regards to individualism, or individuality, creates a stifling environment where not unity, but strict uniformity, is enforced. Dissent, questioning authority, etc. is not putting yourself above the group. Often it's necessary to prevent the group from disintegrating.
Collectives are strongest when they treat their individuals well.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Be skeptical of 'silver bullet' solutions
You may hear or see it frequently.
"If we only did this", "all we need is", "just do this, and your problem is solved".
Mind you there are some situations where one simple act fixes a problem. Tightening your gas cap in your car can make the "check engine" light go away, for example.
What's bemusing to read or hear is "most problems have simple solutions". A poster on a site I frequent put it in those exact words. You would frequently see him state "just do x, problem solved. Next!" "If you want the NFL Network, just call DirecTV, order the service, and the nice technician will come by and set it up for you. Problem solved". When he was challenged about folks who live in apartment complexes that didn't allow satellite dishes, "Then you need to move." In other words, unless you're willing to sacrifice every other life consideration and get DirecTV, you don't really want NFL Network.
Last spring on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News, he made one of the most vapid, ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. Referring to immigration reform, he scoffed at any notion of the need for comprehensive reform. His analogy: a reference to Curly in the movie City Slickers, and his statement that the secret to life is 'one thing' (where he holds up his index finger). He then segued to his point that the key to immigration reform is 'just one thing' - strengthen border and law enforcement. By the way, that gentleman on that site used the "most problems have simple solutions" line in regard to immigration reform. His next sentence: "this one is simply a matter of law enforcement".
Never mind the potential for human rights abuses. Never mind the fact that ridding this country of those who aren't here legally will not improve the plight of the middle class and economically displaced Americans. I'm not suggesting that better patrol of the border and enforcement of the laws isn't a part of the solution, just that several other things need to be considered.
Too many times people want emotionally satisfying, 'silver bullet' prescriptions to problems that are multi-layered, multi-faceted, and that need to be thought through carefully. People who want the easy, quick fix are ripe for demagogues and swindlers.
Trish Roberts Miller writes in Characteristics of Demagoguery "A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.
This insistence on the simplicity of the situation may be a rhetorical decision on the part of the demagogue. Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd (the book that was supposed to be the main influence on Hitler's rhetoric) insists that the masses can only grasp simple ideas: 'Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising, and simple shape'
On the other hand, it may be the demagogues really see the situation in such stark and un-nuanced ways. When Hitler's commanders would complain about his orders being unrealistic and try to talk about logistics, he would tell them that it is not logistics, but The Will that wins wars. (He was wrong.)"
As a side note, the whole essay is a good read: http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery
In short, people who insist that a problem is just awaiting one, simple remedy, are most likely easily manipulated, or are themselves manipulators.
"If we only did this", "all we need is", "just do this, and your problem is solved".
Mind you there are some situations where one simple act fixes a problem. Tightening your gas cap in your car can make the "check engine" light go away, for example.
What's bemusing to read or hear is "most problems have simple solutions". A poster on a site I frequent put it in those exact words. You would frequently see him state "just do x, problem solved. Next!" "If you want the NFL Network, just call DirecTV, order the service, and the nice technician will come by and set it up for you. Problem solved". When he was challenged about folks who live in apartment complexes that didn't allow satellite dishes, "Then you need to move." In other words, unless you're willing to sacrifice every other life consideration and get DirecTV, you don't really want NFL Network.
Last spring on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News, he made one of the most vapid, ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. Referring to immigration reform, he scoffed at any notion of the need for comprehensive reform. His analogy: a reference to Curly in the movie City Slickers, and his statement that the secret to life is 'one thing' (where he holds up his index finger). He then segued to his point that the key to immigration reform is 'just one thing' - strengthen border and law enforcement. By the way, that gentleman on that site used the "most problems have simple solutions" line in regard to immigration reform. His next sentence: "this one is simply a matter of law enforcement".
Never mind the potential for human rights abuses. Never mind the fact that ridding this country of those who aren't here legally will not improve the plight of the middle class and economically displaced Americans. I'm not suggesting that better patrol of the border and enforcement of the laws isn't a part of the solution, just that several other things need to be considered.
Too many times people want emotionally satisfying, 'silver bullet' prescriptions to problems that are multi-layered, multi-faceted, and that need to be thought through carefully. People who want the easy, quick fix are ripe for demagogues and swindlers.
Trish Roberts Miller writes in Characteristics of Demagoguery "A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.
This insistence on the simplicity of the situation may be a rhetorical decision on the part of the demagogue. Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd (the book that was supposed to be the main influence on Hitler's rhetoric) insists that the masses can only grasp simple ideas: 'Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising, and simple shape'
On the other hand, it may be the demagogues really see the situation in such stark and un-nuanced ways. When Hitler's commanders would complain about his orders being unrealistic and try to talk about logistics, he would tell them that it is not logistics, but The Will that wins wars. (He was wrong.)"
As a side note, the whole essay is a good read: http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery
In short, people who insist that a problem is just awaiting one, simple remedy, are most likely easily manipulated, or are themselves manipulators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)