If the Republican establishment leadership thinks it can survive, much less succeed, without the full support of the American Patriot Movement they’d better have another think. What’s really funny (or sad, depending on your outlook), is that these people have fairly convinced themselves that it was their brilliant strategic grasp of the mood of the nation that swept them to victory.
Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and the others were given a sacred trust from well over 60% of the voters of this country. That trust came with a mandate to go to war on the deficit and the Marxist policies that are threatening to destroy our civil society. Many, if not most of us in the Patriot Movement, have been more than a little upset at the leadership’s apparent inability to frame the argument through the white noise of the left’s continual cries of Republicans wanting to force Grannie to eat dog food if we do anything at all to stem the economic disaster waiting in the hall. Let them. The American people have them figured out.
If this country is to survive we are going to have to change the ways in which we define the perils which this country faces. We are in the grip of a world conflict and we cannot even get our government to acknowledge that simple fact in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Absence of definition is the breeding ground of denial. It’s time to start calling things as they are, and stop pecking around the issues like a bunch of nervous hens.
Many, if not most of us in the Patriot Movement, have been more than a little upset at the leadership’s apparent inability to frame the argument through the white noise of the left’s continual cries of Republicans wanting to force Grannie to eat dog food if we do anything at all to stem the economic disaster waiting in the hall. Let them. The American people have them figured out.
<
p>I have absolutely no idea what this means and I’ve re-read it about five times.
However, it is an interesting specimen.
<
p>The Tea Party or “Patriot Movement” as our diarist wishes to call it pines to return to a former America. I’ve always thought of this retrograde tendency as a yearning for cozy simplification: just act like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington and everything will be all right! They were wise godly men who led our country into prosperity. Jefferson, in particular, wanted a very minimal government as do the dress-up Revolutionaries. Let us be like him and we’ll taste anew the fruits of liberty.
<
p>Whereas I, like many liberals, find the pageant which is the Tea Party at once naive and frightening, for its followers(e.g. this diarist) the pageantry and ceremony cloak its otherwise inane doctrines in gravity and seriousness, high purpose and patriotism. They needn’t trouble themselves with economics. Nothing confusing. Certainly nothing developed after the Jackson Administration.
<
p>I suppose like their brethren, the libertarians substituting a grounding in Ayn Rand novels for an understanding of the actual world, or the Christian fundamentalists attempting to revive the social customs of an ancient and brutal Mediterranean backwater, the Right wing has gotten all dreamy, romantic, and Utopian.
<
p>And stupid and dangerous.
<
p>So the thing to observe here is the romance. How strong its attraction. How lyric and earnest its adherents.
The GOP overreach has been astounding. People vote out the incumbents when economic indicators, especially job numbers, are in the tank. What, exactly has the GOP done to create jobs at either the state or federal level in the past few months? Seems they are too busy fighting culture wars and busting unions. Deficits, OTOH may just what the doctor ordered to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
At the time of the Founding Fathers – the real Patriot’s – people still believed in taking care of one another.
<
p>The short sighted selfishness that seems to me to be the hall mark of the Koch-funded “Tea Party” psuedo-patriot movement has no inheritance or quality of patriotism, at all. At least in my view …
<
p>John Locke knew that without civic virtue, and a commitment to one another’s well being capitalism was toxic; the original idea of the market also incuded a belief in virtue and compassion.
<
p>Mind you, whomever wrote the original post probably thinks of compassion as Marxist.
People are angry – genuinely angry. for the first time in decades, they are aware of the Federal defecit and seem to care strongly about it.
<
p>So rather than engage them on the issues they are excited about, we will create a plutocratic bogey-man, that most people involved in the movement have never heard of, much less been influenced by.
<
p>We will reference preferred patriots, omitting the fact that ‘capitalism’ as call it was not a term used by them because it had not been coined, while at the same time ridiculing them for the inadequate quality of their heartfelt, if inexpert, rhetoric.
<
p>Most importantly, we will ceaselessly denigrate them, call them by sexual slurs, and explain in ever-louder voices why they do not matter, they CANNOT matter…
<
p>We will write books complaining about Kansas when they fail to vote the way we thought they should, since we did so much to win their good will.
stereotypes of liberals in your head, and I’m sure some day they’ll go away.
<
p>Best of luck!
<
p>”I suppose like their brethren, the libertarians substituting a grounding in Ayn Rand novels for an understanding of the actual world, or the Christian fundamentalists attempting to revive the social customs of an ancient and brutal Mediterranean backwater, the Right wing has gotten all dreamy, romantic, and Utopian.”
Who, indeed, is better understanding the real world?
would have merely required more words — and fewer of them pretty.
<
p>So I didn’t.
Its the utter condescension of the left. They alone know what is good for America and how dare you question them.
<
p>Secretary Heffernan puts this on display last thursday in Lawrence. Watch this video.
<
p>
<
p>The condescension towards those that dare ask her questions is stunning. How dare anybody question the ruling class.
They don’t even bother figuring out what’s good for America.
I watched this video, all 7:30 of it, waiting anxiously to see some “utter condescension”. I didn’t see any.
<
p>I mean, yes — in my view, the entire “secure communities” program is yet another example of a dangerously intrusive federal government. That, however, is being driven by the xenophobia of the right wing. Secretary Heffernan seems to be attempting to answer questions about this program. Where is the “utter condescension”?
<
p>I am stunned that you offer this clip as evidence of whatever it is you claim. Edgar, there is nothing here. I see a public official answering questions. I see courtesy, politeness, and candor — on all parts (official, audience, and moderator).
<
p>Just what is it that you object to? Where, in this clip, would you have Secretary Heffernan respond differently, and what would you have her do instead?
Eabo’s. This woman is extraordinarily stupid; she was unable to answer most questions with facts. She spent more time telling us what she didn’t know. But, why am I surprised? She is just another overpaid state bureaucrat, a political appointment.
That’s what I get for commenting before finishing my second cup of coffee.
Rather than answer the question, she asks if there are any “Sheriffs or Police Chiefs in the audience” as if only if there are would the dignity of a response be called for. Then she flippantly states that she’s never talked to a sheriff or police chief about Secure Communities. I confirmed this with a Sheriff last night. He’s never been contacted regarding this by anybody in the administration. That’s not just condescension on the part of the Patrick-Murray administration, its arrogance.
You wrote: “Its the utter condescension of the left. They alone know what is good for America and how dare you question them”. You then cite Secretary Heffernan’s answer to the first question as your example.
<
p>Here is the question:
<
p>Here is her answer:
<
p>The question, as posed, presupposes that sheriffs and police chiefs support this program. I heard her response as courteously rejecting that supposition. That isn’t “flippant”, it’s how a professional ducks a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. I think your interpretation of her response (“as if only if there are would the dignity of a response be called for”) is, frankly, paranoid.
<
p>You added: “I confirmed this with a Sheriff last night. He’s never been contacted regarding this by anybody in the administration. That’s not just condescension on the part of the Patrick-Murray administration, its arrogance.”
<
p>I see. So because Secretary Heffernan didn’t talk to your friend, you claim “condescension” and “arrogance” on the part of the Patrick-Murray administration.
<
p>I’d say that that is, well, arrogant on your part.
I don’t see the utter condescension either. She may not have answered the questions as fully as one might have liked, and I do believe it was inappropriate to refer to a comment from the audience as a lie, rather than an incorrect statement, but utter condescension? It’s a stretch.
It seems to me that our visiting Republicans often hurl the accusation that liberals act as if we “know what’s best”. How arrogant we are to treat the demands of the Tea Partiers with condescension.
<
p>Reflecting on this some more, the wonky liberals that haunt Blue Mass Group care a whole lot about policy. That’s because we want government policy to have good outcomes. We also know that some necessary policies might be unpalatable or even unpopular. Most of all, we want them to work.
<
p>The Republican leadership has essentially abandoned the domain of policy. I think post-invasion Iraq is the clearest example. The Bush Administration arrived with lots of slogans, sound-bites, and stirring principles, but no plans and things went to hell fast. Now we are seeing the same approach to the economy with slogans, sound-bites, and stirring principles but no more attempt to grapple with policy than we saw in Baghdad.
<
p>And just as they were proud of their Iraq policy and accused critics of being defeatists and America haters, so now are they also proud of the Tea Party pageant, of Rep. Ryan’s budgets that don’t add up, and of making random ill-considered cuts in the budget. If it has immediate appeal, it must be right, it must be what the American people want. To assert otherwise is to be arrogant.
<
p>What’s at stake is whether the whole enterprise of studying and understanding the world will have a bearing on how we are governed. The Republicans offer government by popular superstition — and judge themselves small-d democrats for doing so. We who want effective government based on rational policies they regard as out-of-touch monarchists.
The people running the Republican party are not fools. They know the numbers don’t add up. But, if adopted, the laws will advance what they want in a variety of areas. It is the middle class people who support the GOP and vote for them in the tens of millions who, to use your phrase, have “essentially abandoned the domain of policy.” And, in fairness, it must be pointed out that many of the policies the Democratic Party supports are similar in their counter-productive results for the bulk of the population to those advanced by the Republicans. Obama, for example, has abandoned many of his campaign promises in favor of less broad-based approaches, to put it charitably. Here, it seems, is a potential problem for this country over the long run.
I didn’t intend this to be the whole story. I chose the phrase “wonky liberal” advisedly. For example, I’ve seen populist liberals stray off into Feel Good Territory, too, but even they can often be talked down from feel-good foolishness.
<
p>Nor do I speak of Obama. I’m just a beginner when it comes to him. How does one characterize his policies — or lack of policies? Beats me.
<
p>Instead, I’ve started thinking about the annoying things conservatives say and wondering what truths lie behind the annoyance. After all, we’ve gotten as far as we can possibly get by accusing Bush of mendacity and Palin of stupidity. There’s stuff we’re overlooking.
<
p>So my challenge is: Why this frequent conservative characterization of liberals as arrogant? What’s its appeal? What does it say about conservatives? about liberals? How is it best met?
I’m going to attempt to borrow a page from “Constructivist Therapy”.
<
p>We see this persistent behavior from conservatives. We see this persistent inability to handle it from the rest of us. We have been locked in this deadly embrace for nearly a generation.
<
p>Suppose these symptoms, as painful as they are, serve the constructive purpose of hiding and protecting us from an even more painful set of unconsciously imagined symptoms.
<
p>Suppose the symptoms we see are, in fact, a constructive, creative and positive way of protecting us from an even more scary (and unconscious) imagined problem.
<
p>What might that problem be? Perhaps if we can reframe the construct that creates the need for these symptoms, the symptoms themselves will go away. Perhaps if we look for meaning in these symptoms in a spirit of “appreciative inquiry”, they will provide insight to whatever underlying disorder is provoking them.
Only so much as it fits into their preconceived notions about the role of government, universal health care, and social issues like abortion.
<
p>The fact of the matter is there is no intellectual wing of the Tea Party Movement and there is no long-term philosophical foundations that will ensure this movement will stick around as the economy improves or the next president comes around.
<
p>I am no liberal. I only say that because liberals are not the only ones who can’t stand or understand the Tea Party and their anti-intellectual underpinnings and disheartening rhetoric about purifying the Republican party. I’m not sure what sexual slurs would make sense in denigrating such a group but there are none in this post.
<
p>Of course most people in the tea party have never heard of the Koch brothers. That’s just the way the Kochs like it. They create front group upon front group to hide their involvement. If the Koch brothers did not exert enormous influence over their minions, they sure wasted a lot of money trying.
<
p>
<
p>Actually, Paul Krugman has discussed the deficit many times in his NY Times columns and blogs. He explains that there are situations in which a large deficit should be avoided, but that the current situation, characterized by a liquidity trap, is not one of them.
<
p>You could search Krugman’s NY Times site for “deficit” and “liquidity trap” to learn more.
<
p>
<
p>When one group is trying to destroy what little remains of our once-shared prosperity, for the enrichment of a small minority, those of us who disagree with them will do so strongly. If you call that denigrating, so be it. I call it fair game in a democracy.
<
p>sexual slurs??? Never appropriate in polite company. No one on the right ever does that, do they?
Paul Krugman says we should borrow so gosh darnit we should.
Policy! It gives me such a headache! Maybe if I make fun of it, it will go away!
May the almighty, if she/he exists, spare us from Krugman’s “wisdom.”
Okay, we got it, we got it.
<
p>Go to Advanced Search. Look up Enron. Order results by date. ETA has been talking about Krugman and Enron since at least November 8. The response is almost Pavlovian.
<
p>If there was any insight to be had from that thin observation, it has been had.
<
p>Your work is done, oh Enronbot.
<
p>You can now retire.
occasionally find at least one other “expert” besides the former Enron advisor to support your wishful thinking. KBusch, you used to have original ideas; what happened to you?
You’ve already made some form of this comment like thirty times already.
<
p>Yawn.
<
p>Wake me up when you say something new.
Paul Krugman’s predictions about the too-small stimulus and austerity programs in Europe have been accurate.
A post from August 2010 here that still applies. Unemployment has barely budged since then.
<
p>Excerpt (post referenced is a link to a separate post):
<
p>
<
p>Comments about how European austerity is working out here
<
p>Excerpt:
<
p>
way out of bankruptcy, there is no point in discussing the issue. You should note, however, that the European Community is trying to save countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland from complete disaster by encouraging the reduction of spending (give-away social programs) which got them into trouble in the first place. Conservatives here see the same road to disaster looming–thus the attempts to reign in debt.
included a complete bail out of failed banks at taxpayer expense. Yes, this was a poor decision. If this qualifies as social spending to you, then we have found an area of agreement. The banks should have had to take at least some of the hit. However, that is now water under the bridge. The question is what to do next.
<
p>The proof of the pudding should be, how’s that austerity working out for them? Can you offer any examples in which social program austerity has significantly improved the employment numbers?
<
p>The “Keynsian myth” as you call it can be illustrated by noting the situation of Iceland, which had a huge bank crisis in 2008 and addressed it by making the banks take the hit, while retaining existing social programs. Their employment situation has significantly improved since then.
<
p>Compare Ireland and Iceland: Iceland forced their banks to re-structure and left the social spending alone: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…
<
p>And the Iceland employment figures have been better than Irelend’s, even though their 2008 financial crisis had been considered worse. See employment chart here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…
banks is concerned. I know from some people who have returned to the US that the labor situation in Ireland is still horrific. And they, too, inflicted a lot of harm on themselves by over inflating their real estate values–just as we did. The jury is still out, and we shall see what happens.
You have also made this rather shallow comment about neo-Keynsian economics a large number of times.
<
p>The only backing you ever apply is invective (“myth” here) and poorly analyzed examples.
<
p>Might I suggest that you simply get someone to automate your comments? It would save you typing. That way a machine could make the same comments over and over again for you.
<
p>Think of the time you’d save!
At least that’s what you tell us.
<
p>And you participate in it robotically?
<
p>What’s the point?
leftist shibboleths. I am surprised that lately you resort to stereotypes and angry language to cope with those whom you disagree with.
That’s just bullshit.
<
p>If one were to just quote Krugman, if that’s all one did, one would still have a greater variety of comments than your unsurprising observation that liberals actually tend to agree with one another. Golly! What a contribution.
<
p>And there’s a lot to be said in the area of neo-Keynsian economics beyond making the repeated and uninteresting observation that neo-Keynsian economics are — surprise! — neo-Keynsian.
<
p>Again, why do you wish to make such robotic contributions when you claim to value intelligence? Another word for enjoying “pulling a chain” is being a troll.
<
p>Are you telling me you aspire to being a troll?
Let me recommend a great book for your reading enjoyment: “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I’m halfway through; you will find it very interesting–and as usual–no need to agree with everything that is discussed.
It’s not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing.
<
p>I look forward to being disagreed with in novel and interesting ways, but you are disagreeing in a uniform, unvarying and boring fashion.
<
p>Why are you bothering?
Glad to see you’re on board:)
Glad to see you’re on board:)
Or Ted Kennedy?
<
p>This disease afflicts the GOP as well, and has done so for my entire adult life.
Your “patriot movement” is nothing but a loose coalition of anti-tax, anti-intellectual, anti-progress nuts, bigots, and homophobes who have convinced themselves that their embittered and impoverished lives will somehow be enriched or improved by grinding any progress towards a national commonwealth into the ground. The Tea Party movement, such as it is, is a symbol of all that is wrong with this nation, and should its so-called values ever gain a foothold in any large measure, that occurrence will ensure an expeditious demise of this nation in both principle and practice.
Never expected to hear such nasty stereotyping from you, one of my heroines on this site.
Their rhetoric, to the extent that they can be considered to have a coherent message, reveals much about them. You may view my assessment as stereotyping, but I see it as a fairly accurate characterization of what is currently strutting on the national stage under the Tea Party banner.
…that only Egypt and Sudan are nations in “de Nile”!:)
News Flash: Conservative Republicans unhappy with Democratic president.
<
p>Gee whizz, really?
What’s the matter, MSM focusing too much on Libya and not enough on the deficit? Pretty hilarious that you are coming here to share the faux panic and continue the false assertion that the deficit is what average Americans are concerned about.
<
p>Just so that you know, most people I talk to are less concerned about the deficit and more concerned about the steadily increasing cost of living. They feel like they are working more for less pay, and at the end of the day they have no money left to save or spend on the fun stuff.
Those people I talk to are not liberal Democrats either, they are Independents or conservative/moderate Dems, and some are Republicans. Some of them identify with the Tea Party. I don’t know who you think you are speaking for but it’s not the working middle class people I know.
<
p>I do believe that desperation is setting in, Mr. Koch. Thanks for the post though, it was hilarious.