Fox News asked me to write the progressive reaction to the Super Tuesday Republican primary results. Here, in essence, is what I said:
Far from a coronation, the Republican primary continues to be a coronary, like ideological plaque clogging up any potential for clarity and blocking the path forward.
It’s not just that Republican voters can’t settle on one candidate. That indecision is merely a symptom of deeper rupturing.
I then go on to talk about the shortcomings of Mr. 1% and Mr. Moral-High-Horse-In-A-Sweater-Vest — and make some prognostications and recommendations for the future of the Republican Party.
I weigh in, along with Frances Fox Piven, Eric Alterman and others.
During a recent Republican presidential debate, the conservative audience cheered the fact that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has presided over 234 executions, the “vast majority” of which he assured involved guilty offenders. Meanwhile, conservatives are up in arms that the federal government, through a loan initiated by the Bush Administration, backed Solyndra, a clean energy company that just filed for bankruptcy.
On the one hand, conservatives are attacking the role of government in stimulating jobs and new industry. On the other hand, conservatives are praising the role of government in executing its citizens. WTF?
Yes, people, government can make mistakes. I’m a liberal and even I can admit that. But let’s compare…
In 2009, the Department of Energy made a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra. In 2010, analysts suggested Solyndra might be losing its competitive edge in the market, but subsequently the company still raised an additional $175 million from private investors. Incidentally, Solyndra’s backers include George Kaiser, a donor and bundler for Obama, but also the Walton family behind Wal-Mart, big-time Republican donors. Solyndra’s CEO is a Republican as well.
The Solyndra investment is 1.3% of the $38 billion to be disbursed through this particular loan program, which in turn is only a fraction of government stimulus investments. Moreover, when the dust settles, the federal government will recoup at least a portion of its investment. About 1,100 Solyndra workers lost their jobs.
Still, the DOE loan program has created or saved over 65,000 American jobs. The government will get some of our money back after the claims of employees and certain investors are settled. Is it possible that, in the case of this one loan, the Obama Administration rushed to judgment for the sake of a photo op? Sure, it’s possible. But what’s certain is that China’s government invests 30 times more funding in new energy technology and jobs than we do — which is why Solyndra couldn’t compete. The path to a robust 21st century American economy isn’t exactly laid out on a stone tablet somewhere. In trying to get there, the public sector and private sector will both make mistakes. Using the misstep of Solyndra as an excuse to cut all government investment in the green jobs of the future will not only kill the jobs that have been created but will kill the chance of American competitiveness going forward.
Conservatives, however, seem quite comfortable killing things — whether jobs or people.
According to the Innocence Project, an organization that uses new DNA technology to re-examine the cases of death row inmates:
Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.
In 2004, Texas — under Governor Rick Perry — executed Cameron Todd Willingham who was accused of setting a fire that killed his three children. Willingham consistently plead his innocence and independent analysts agree there were extraordinary flaws in the evidence used to convict him. After Willingham was executed, a state forensics commission on the verge of examining the case and surfacing evidence of Willingham’s innocence was gutted by Gov. Perry and replaced by partisan cronies.
Compelling evidence now suggests that the state of Texas wrongly executed a grieving father. Do we put a price on that mistake? Is Cameron Todd Willingham worth more or less than $535 million? Maybe Willingham counts a bit more because he’s white while many conservatives accept the fact that the government executes innocent people believing most of them are black and must have done something wrong. Here I could point out that most death row inmates are, in fact, white — or I could point out that it really shouldn’t matter.
Of course this is a racialized debate. We have a black president who finalized a loan to support green jobs, a concept pioneered by underemployed communities of color and famously championed by Obama’s black green jobs czar Van Jones. Last night, a popular conservative provocateur on Twitter unfortunately had his home broken into. He tweeted:
This is a more explicit version of implicit conservative logic that “rationalizes” attacking government investment while endorsing state-sponsored execution: If government is wasteful and black people are dangerous, than black people running government is dangerously wasteful — but government wasting black people is A-OK.
Just once, I’d like conservatives to be skeptical of government abuse of power where it really matters — not just dollars and political scandals but the loss of innocent human life.
There’s this great line from Lily Tomlin’s “Search For Signs Of Intelligent Life In The Universe” in which the central character is trying to explain to space aliens the difference between a can of Campbell’s soup and Warhol’s painting of said can. The aliens go to see a play but ultimately — taken by the intriguing reactions from the crowd — decide that “the play is soup, the audience is art”.
And so it was tonight. The candidates on the stage were soup, but the audience was a fascinating, impressionistic portrait of today’s conservative American electorate.
First, there was a lot of booing. They booed at Ron Paul for suggesting that Muslim extremists may have reasons for attacking America other than just “hating our freedom.” They booed Mitt Romney for not giving a knee-jerk endorsement of the so-called “Fair Tax”. And they booed Rick Perry for giving in-state tuition access to undocumented immigrants, although just moments later whooping it up when Michelle Bachmann suggested forcing immigrants to speak English — failing to see the contradiction that undocumented immigrants going to college probably, uh, speak English. In fact, much of the booing reflected a horrifying disinterest in nuance among the crowd. They didn’t want to hear anything about how government might work, how taxes could be justified or how immigrants could strengthen America. It’s no wonder the gravitational pull of the Tea Party has been not only ideological but pedagogical, creating a Republican Party that is more dogmatic and less nuanced than ever.
Second, the audience was markedly divided. There were numerous answers to which, when the camera panned to the audience, only some people were clapping but certainly not all. Repeal Obamacare? Thunderous, universal applause. But on issue after issue of domestic economic policy and foreign policy, the audience demonstrated a clear lack of unanimity that has oozed from the Tea Party and infected the once-united Republican Party. Today’s Republican Party is clearly more united around what it opposes — everything associated with Barack Obama — than what it supports. Post-debate commentators talked about the desire of candidates on the stage to “play to the Tea Party audience” but the Tea Party audience made their hard-to-pinpoint political schizophrenia and numerous ideological contradictions abundantly clear, such that through the lens of an applause-o-meter, the debate seemed like an impossible game of pin the tail on the moving elephant.
I won’t weigh in on which candidate came out on top tonight, but I will say that the Tea Party clearly came out on the bottom. An audience that literally shouts its support that someone without health insurance should be left to die, among other base and immoral notions, reveals that the Tea Party’s political taste and temperament are as far removed from the American mainstream as imaginable. Not necessarily a pretty picture, but a very accurate portrait indeed.
I have received some nasty responses to my piece pointing out that some libertarians would rather destroy government and live without it than improve it.
Some of you took to Twitter to call me, for instance, a “delusional narcissistic left-wing idiot” and stupid. Thanks for those clever retorts!
As far as I can tell, you object to (a) my rhetoric, such as calling libertarians un-patriotic and (b) some of the conclusions I imply, such as that libertarians might ease restrictions on murder on their floating island lawless nations. Let’s deal with each of these critiques in turn.
First, I am entitled to the belief that adherents of a political ideology who want not just to adapt aspects of the Constitutions and our government but throw whole swaths of our founding vision out the window are dangerously walking an un-patriotic line. I mean, jeez, Rick Perry could call Ben Bernacke “treasonous” for using basic monetary policy to stimulate the economy — and I can’t throw a significantly less-pointed barb at libertarians who assert that politicians, including America’s founders, who levy taxes are violating the Constitution.
In other words, stating that these and certain other libertarian beliefs are un-American is not a mischaracterization but an accurate reflection of an ideology that blatantly mischaracterizes America’s founding principles and documents.
Second, I was quoting Patri Friedman who said that the advantage to his “seasteading” libertarian islands is that they are “free from moral suasion”. His words, not mine.
What’s more, the Libertarian Party celebrates the notion of an “armed citizenry”, abhors any restrictions on even the most dangerous of weapons, and opposes any prosecution of those engaged in “self-defense”, which is defined as including any property, etc., and not just defending one’s or another’s life. For many people — myself included — these notions are tantamount to vigilanteism, endorsing a Wild West mentality in which might is right. Many of us, including our Founders, created a nation precisely so people wouldn’t take the law — including murder — into their own hands but so we could guarantee fairness and due process to all and protect the liberty of all people, especially those who are most vulnerable. Again, if you have a problem with my characterization, please look more carefully at the ideas I am characterizing and how they unsettle the hearts and minds of most Americans.
I’m particularly struck that by one tweet I received, echoing the sentiments of Ron Paul and others, that Obama is a “corporatist”. I agree — but find the assertion disingenuous coming from those who want to privatize every aspect of our common good and hand it over to big business. Not to mention the idea of multi-millionaire Libertarians funding off-shore corporate nations beyond the reach of government doesn’t exactly strike anyone as mom-and-pop Main Street entrepreneurship.
Face it, if you don’t like the way the libertarian ideas comes off in pieces like mine, perhaps it’s time you do a little ideological soul searching.
Sincerely,
Sally
Did you know that leading libertarians are building man-made floating island nations in the ocean, free of pesky laws and government? In this op-ed for Reuters, I reveal the scary, anti-American agenda of libertarian extremism.
Former Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell isn’t the smartest witch in the coven. But apparently, even she was wise enough to know that bloviating against same-sex marriage on primetime television wouldn’t win her any fans.
My copy of O’Donnell’s book hasn’t arrived yet, but I’m sure looking forward to it. Meanwhile, though, I’ll trust sources that say she writes about her opposition to gay marriage in the book. But undoubtedly, in the jurassic book publishing world, she wrote those words at least a year ago. To paraphrase the ol’ saying, change is slow except when it’s fast. The tide on marriage equality has changed quickly over the last year — almost as quickly, I’d say, as the tide of public opinion has shifted against the Tea Party. Could it be that O’Donnell, who now wants to sell books not win office, is smarter than we think — realizing that if she aims for mainstream appeal, she’ll have to stop spouting such fringe viewpoints?
Perhaps. Though since most of mainstream America, including us gays, can actually read, O’Donnell’s true feelings on the matter aren’t likely to stay hidden….
Meanwhile, the interview below is an interesting microcosm of the evolving ideological opportunism of the Right — sensing that, at least for voters outside of Iowa, social conservativism is out and fiscal conservativism is in. But while Americans may be dumb enough to buy Christine O’Donnell’s book (I already bought mine!) we’re not dumb enough to buy the wolves of Bible thumping, moralizing yesterday disguised as anti-government sheep today.
The Democratic Party desperately shoved through a debt deal that manages to be wildly unpopular with the American public, disastrous to economic growth and job creation and, not incidentally, opposed to every core principle of shared sacrifice that liberals supposedly hold dear. This will go down in history as the moment Democratic liberalism died. Finally brought down by the repeated blows from the far Right? No. The fatal wounds were entirely self-inflicted.
The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the very rich and oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Let me repeat that. The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes. That includes majorities of Independents and Republicans. Nonetheless, Obama refused to force-feed the Republicans heaping spoonfuls of tax increase peas with a glass of persuasive poling on the side to wash it down. Instead we got the proverbial shit sandwich, which given that no one is happy with the deal and partisanship is even greater now as a result, may have solved the economic crisis but enshrined a political one. Even with the prevailing winds of public opinion strongly at their back, Democrats caved to Republican threats and grandstanding.
Of course, the fact that raising the debt ceiling was coupled with deficit cuts was a Democratic capitulation from the start. The wise and independent Economic Policy Institute writes in its post-mortem:
This proposed debt ceiling deal tentatively concludes a needlessly manufactured crisis and will do great harm to our nation. The debt we are undertaking now and scheduled to undertake over the next ten years is solely the product of past decisions (primarily unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit and two rounds of tax cuts under President George W. Bush) and the recession-related revenue losses caused by the financial crisis generated by financial deregulation and weak oversight…. There is no economic necessity to undertake spending cuts or deficit reduction plans at this point in the economic recovery, when high unemployment is expected to persist for several more years. Jobs should be the priority and jobs are the path to get our nation’s fiscal situation to a responsible place.
In other words, what’s needed to cure our economic stagnation is not spending cuts that will further cripple the middle class but more spending on infrastructure and jobs to kick start the future. Yet at precisely the moment that we should have been talking about spending more instead of cutting spending, Republicans pigeonholed the political conversation into slashing Social Security, food stamps and Medicare. Democrats agreed to play ball on Republican’s ideological home field. And then kicked the ball through the other side’s goal. It is, unfortunately, my liberal suckers thesis played out to the letter.
I voted for Barack Obama. I volunteered to help him win. And yes, I was swept up by the fantastical Camelot of hopes and dreams. But like many progressives, I’m reminded today that 2008 was about the mission, not the man. And if we cling to the hope that Barack Obama, as one of the few charismatic leaders on our side, might any minute now take up the mantle of progressive ideals that he has so clearly eschewed so far, that is a reflection less on his power over us than our own power of self-delusion and desperation.
Michael Tomasky brilliantly observes that while Republicans fear their base in the sense that they treat them with respect and kid gloves. Democrats fear being associated with their base and thus make “aggressive public moves to demonstrate that they aren’t really like their base.” Which is all the more absurd — or pathetic, really — given that the Republican base is in fact an extreme fringe while the Democratic base represents a very large, very mainstream segment of America. More voters stayed home in the 2010 mid-term elections than voted, and yet the Tea Party has managed to hold a powerful ideological sway not only over the Republican establishment but, clearly, President Obama and many Democrats. The Tea Party is an audacious fringe with mainstream influence. Meanwhile, progressives represent the moral mainstream yet have barely fringe influence.
I’m sick of being taken for granted, in general but especially when something like basic tax increases on the very rich are not only good for our economic future but something that the American people overwhelmingly support. If the President isn’t listening to us now, when will he? Obama didn’t just stab Democratic liberalism in the back — he may have cut himself off from his base permanently.
My take on the continuing default crisis, Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB, and James O’Keefe’s latest disaster >> If you want to receive my adVantage Points every weekday morning in your inbox, email info@movementvision.org
Republicans Retreat To Right - story
Republicans are not only holding our nation’s entire future hostage, but they’ve hijacked basic common sense and political decency. The Tea Party will go down in history as the movement that threw America overboard.
James O’Keefe At It Again – video
James O’Keefe notoriously brought down the community organization ACORN through falsifying videos that undermined the organization’s reputation. Before anyone believes O’Keefe’s attack on Medicaid in Ohio, we need to see (a) proof that the clips shown do not included edited-in voice-overs, and (b) unedited footage of all discussions with Medicaid workers. Given O’Keefe’s track record, we should take this latest video with a grain of assault.
Cordray, Not Warren, To Head CFPB - story
Obama could have done worse with this nomination, but he could have done much better. Warren was by far the best choice for the job and favored by progressive voters. Why is the President so inclined to throw bones to the far Right on spending cuts and deportations, but can’t make the most basic of gestures to his base?
Kudos to Nona Willis Aronowitz and the sharp folks at GOOD Magazine for shedding light on a study that half of Americans who get government aid swear they don’t. You read that right folks — the very same people who receive Medicare and even welfare benefits, for crying out loud, deny that they benefit from government aid and keep right on repeating those anti-government conservative talking points. As if we needed any more evidence that we have entered a Twilight Zone-esque universe of anti-logic.
Here’s the chart from the Cornell study:
Aronowitz writes:
Half of people getting federal student loans don’t think they’ve ever used a government social program. Forty percent of Medicare recipients have no idea their health insurance is funded by the state. And 25 percent of the people receiving that emblem of All That Is Bad About Big Government, welfare, don’t connect that paycheck to the “enemy.” Given the fact that one in six Americans use anti-poverty programs alone, there’s a hell of a lot of people who are deluded about how much the government helps them out.
Aronowitz rightly argues the point isn’t (just) that these folks are hypocrites (though they are) but the larger cultural and political implications of a mindset that government help is about them not us. Part of the conservative attack on public spending and entitlement programs is to race bait the debate and suggest that only poor black people get help from government, when in fact government is overwhelmingly controlled by and manipulated for the benefit of wealthy white CEOs and big business. But even old grandmas and new entrepreneurs benefit from government.
In fact, I’d challenge anyone to come up with an example of supposedly individual success in America that didn’t benefit in some way from collective, government infrastructure. Go ahead, try me.
SOCIALIZE WITH ME!
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLS
Make a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy ProjectINSTAGRAMTASTIC
