It makes a bit more sense to me as a former Republican, but still his rant is pretty funny. But he thinks voters are stupid. We keep letting the rich get away with their absurdities by voting for the wrong people. Well, people did vote for Obama hoping things would change and they haven't. So it's not that people are stupid in my view. It's that we don't have choices.
Two related and good articles also. Some don't use the word "rich" to describe the wealthy any more. Chad is like this. It's "job creators". But are they really? This article says no. Also a good article by Matt Taibbi on the corporate tax holiday.
22 comments:
Well, people did vote for Obama hoping things would change and they haven't.
What kinds of things would you like to see changed that have not. And of those which do you think is truly possible given the political climate?
Please keep in mind that my question to you does not stem from a desire to negate what you are claiming.
FYI - I am a supporter of his and I think many of the criticisms you have provided are valid.
On this
It's that we don't have choices.
I am sympathetic to your sentiments but at the moment I disagree. Perhaps; metaphorically speaking, whereas you may be looking at the issue form top to bottom I look at it from bottom to top. If we truly don't have choices, and for the moment I do not concede this, it is our own collective fault. That is we collectively fail to assume our responsibilities.
And though I am not a political scientist my hypothesis is that some of this is an inherent consequence (deficiency?) of a democratic republic (small d and r) system.
Take the war in Afghanistan. Something like 70% of Americans want that to end right away. Obama has expanded that effort.
Same with the wars in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and wherever else. I don't have polls but I bet these are opposed by large majorities. I personally don't know a single right winger that supports these actions, let alone left wingers.
The same is true economically. As I've mentioned before, we did get an extension of the tax cuts that raised taxes on one group of people. The very poorest Americans. Granted, it came with an extension of unemployment benefits.
We'll see what happens with regards to this debt ceiling thing. I'm afraid it's going to be more right wing policy. So I have to take issue with Maher. Reasonable people that are kind of busy just getting food on the table are not going to have an easy time making sense of their political choices. It's easy to conclude that Obama represents a person that would generally follow the popular will on wars, surveillance, torture, whistleblowing, and taxes. But it's not true. Apparently polls showed the majority of Americans assumed Bush supported the Kyoto protocols. Americans support them and the PR is crafted to make it appear Bush is just like you. These are very skilled people that are good at what they do. And what they do is mislead people.
I don't disagree with you on the fact that this is our fault. We aren't organized. We don't hold people to account. Taibbi talks about that in his article. The corporate profit tax rate is like 35%. They want to let them get by with 5% at a time when we're really struggling to pay bills. Why aren't people going crazy? We need to get organized and demand representation for us to, not just for corporations.
You really think we have choices? Consider that Americans generally were quite opposed to the war in 2008 during the election. The top 4 candidates all promised to continue on the Bush war plan. Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney. Who would have been the next highest rated candidate? Huckabee? Fred Thompson? You had to get way down the list to finally get to someone that reflected the will of the people on this vital issue. Pretty amazing.
Jon - in the other thread you said
...Still, the costs of undying support are you get real right wing extremism from Obama. At what point do you say forget it. You don't get my vote if you don't move leftwards some amount.
I hope you don't mind that I am responding here since there is overlap. I don't think my answer for this is going to satisfy you but my answer is Obama can take my vote for granted. I don't know how to fix the underlying issue. But I don't think that (increasing the number of Republicans in government is going to be the solution. That is I don't think we are going to get stronger left wing candidates as a result. Rather I think the solution is to suck it up (if you prefer to look at it that way) and try to get as many Democrats in government as we can. Only when Democrats feel truly empowered do I think we'll see a leftward shift. Democrats got their asses kicked in the last election. Do you think we are better off now than before?
Just as an FYI - I consider myself a liberal. I am not a registered Democrat though de-facto I am one. I was registered Republican 10 years ago. Though I wouldn't have called myself conservative. I was probably something of a hybrid libertarian and liberal. Possibly something semi-similar to HP
Take the war in Afghanistan. Something like 70% of Americans want that to end right away. Obama has expanded that effort.
I disagree with what has happened but in his defense he did say he was going to expand that effort during his campaign.
Same with the wars in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and wherever else. I don't have polls but I bet these are opposed by large majorities. I personally don't know a single right winger that supports these actions, let alone left wingers.
Perhaps true.
Reasonable people that are kind of busy just getting food on the table are not going to have an easy time making sense of their political choices.
I don't know what constitutes a reasonable person but I will conced the point and say that this may very well be the case. I don't know how to fix it though. If people cannot take the time to figure out what their positions are and follow these positions to their logical conclusion whose fault is it?
I think polls are a meaningful tool to a certain point. One can be against (or for) all sorts of things but if someone is a one issue voter it is a moot point to discuss polls. For example, say someone always votes for the pro-life candidate (tangent - I think you are pro-life, I am pro-choice). Then their positions (or disagreement) on the other issues are irrelevant.
You really think we have choices? Consider that Americans generally were quite opposed to the war in 2008 during the election. The top 4 candidates all promised to continue on the Bush war plan. Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney. Who would have been the next highest rated candidate? Huckabee? Fred Thompson? You had to get way down the list to finally get to someone that reflected the will of the people on this vital issue. Pretty amazing.
Right - the top 4 promised to continue the Bush wars. Yet they were the top four candidates. To me this seems to indicate that the war was not that vital to the voters (in a general sense).
Furthermore - Ron Paul was against the war. And he had/has a signficant built-in cult following. Yet he got trounced. Why is that? I am not going to deny that the establishment is not partly to blame. I just don't think the establishment is the contributing factor.
Slight tangent - I think Ron Paul's cult following has less to do with his stance on war than on other topics. But I may be wrong on this.
In my view the problem is not that Democrats feel empowered or unable to deal with Republican pressure. I think, and I beliee the evidence justifies this, that this is really how they govern. Obama was the one that actively undermined single payer and a public option for health care. Pressure from Republicans did not require that. They figured out how to get it through with a bare majority from a procedural standpoint, and as soon as this was learned they just took it off the table.
Same with the wars. Obama kind of himmed and hawed when it came to positions that the left cared about, like health care. Oh, these Republicans are too tough on me. But when it came time to fund wars he aggressively cracked skulls, in a way he refused to do on issues that his base cares about.
So it's not about pressure. Nobody was pressuring him to torture Bradley Manning or open black sites in Somalia. He is actively governing in a very right wing way. And he can do it because he has the undying support of a lot of people, like yourself.
Not that I don't understand your position. I do. But I think you might be misguided when you say that if only we had enough Democrats we'd get things done. They had as many Democrats as they could ask for when Obama won, but it's never enough. Why not start wars and cut taxes for the rich? The base is going nowhere and you might pull off some middle ground types.
Sure, it's our fault that we don't understaned the issues, but there's a very sophisticated propaganda effort made to enssure that citizens are marginalized. So I'm sympathetic to people that are unaware. I used to be much more unaware than I am today, which is why I always voted Republican. So I know how a well meaning person can be misled within this system.
I think you are absolutely wrong when you conclude that because the top 4 candidates supported the war this shows that the public wasn't interested in the issue. There's a very conscious effort made to prevent discussion about issues that actually matter to people. That's why there's so much talk about things like the Confederate Flag, whatever stupid thing Palin said, or whatever zinger one person said. Very much there is avoidance of the issues, and it's not an accident.
In retrospect do you think we would be better off now if ralph nader had not run for president in 2001? I know it is pure speculation. Just curios.
Jon -
And he can do it because he has the undying support of a lot of people, like yourself.
I think you say this is jest but if I may be an apologist for myself I wouldn't qualify my support for him as undying. Perhaps irrelevant but of the Democratic contenders in the last presidential cycle I supported Edwards. Sadly things haven't turned out well in that respect.
Sure, it's our fault that we don't understaned the issues, but there's a very sophisticated propaganda effort made to enssure that citizens are marginalized. So I'm sympathetic to people that are unaware. I used to be much more unaware than I am today, which is why I always voted Republican. So I know how a well meaning person can be misled within this system.
Not related to the topic but was there a catalyst that set you on your search?
If I made the following claim - in admittedly broad terms -
Republicans are all conservatives - not to discount conservative leaning libertarians.
Democrats are *not* all liberals. That is within the Democratic party there is a large continent of moderates and light-conservatives.
Liberals typically are Democrats or Democratic leaning independents.
Do you think, again in broad terms, this is a fair representation?
Jon,
Dude, that first article was horrible. Nothing but left wing talking points, devoid of any real economics. I can't even stomach reading the Taibbi article now. Though I have a feeling his will be along the same lines.
The heart of the article is this claim: "In other words, because the share of income going to the top has increased so dramatically, ordinary people have $12,500 less in their wallets today."
I'm curious Jon, do you agree with this central premise of the article? (biting my tongue: not going to say the 'basic economics' charge...oh wait, I just said it, didn't I?).
I would agree with you on that, HP. I don't agree with the $12,500 claim. The increase in income for the rich is not the cause of the reduction in income to the rest. In my view income gains for the rich remain consistent with productivity gains and since the mid 70's that's not been true for the poor and middle class. The cause of that is not the income gains of the rich, but other factors that I've talked about a lot, like financialization, deregulation, union busting, etc.
The meat of the article in my view though is the point about how demand is a key component in job creation. The hoarding of wealth that we see these days is less of a gainer (though not necessarily a zero gainer). So the claim that letting the super rich keep more of their money is not as likely to spur job creation as stimulus that would spur demand. And the reason there is little demand is because income has been distributed in an uneven way.
Very tough question, Paul. Here's some thoughts that inform my opinion on Nader, though I'm kind of undecided still.
Clinton was just as murderous as Bush. Look to Bosnia and Iraq. Just as many died under Clinton's sanctions regime in Iraq as died under Bush in Iraq probably (though it's tought to know for sure). In fact one of the good things about the war is it did bring the sanctions regime to a close. Clinton also tortured people. Where Bush was different was that he had US personnel do the torturing. Is that worse? I don't think so.
Madeleine Albright said it really well. She said all Presidents have a policy like Bush. That is we go to war when we want. But it's counter productive to smash people in the face with it. Bush was cock sure and basically brandished American power without a hint of shame or two faced posturing, as Obama does. Obama comes in with all these apologies. Sorry to have killed so many Muslims, he says in Cairo. Meanwhile he continues to support Mubarak and expands his own wars. He's just as murderous as any other President. But he lies better.
So if Gore had been President, why think he would have been easier on the rest of the world? He probably woudln't have. On the other hand the economy would be doing much better, assuming he didn't have tax cuts for the rich as Bush did. So the selfish part of me prefers Nader hadn't been involved. But the other part of me says Bush's blatant disregard for basic moral principles and laws is important because it helped the scales fall from my eyes, and probably a lot of others as well. This is necessary to stop the murderous nature of our government. Democrats have killed a lot of people overseas, maybe more than Republicans. Vietnam for example. With Democrats people blissfully accept this, as in Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan today. With Republicans in charge you at least get objections from the left, which perhaps slows the violence. I think we'd have less violence today if McCain was President. He might not have been able to go into Libya. I think he probably wouldn't have. There would have been hoots and howls on the left.
The catalyst for me was probably the WMD failures. Mainstream media was on board, so I was sure we must be in the right. I viewed them as cantakerous, questioning power. Basically I had the standard view of the media. So how could they have been so wrong on this?
Yeah, I kind of agree with your characterization of Republicans and Democrats.
Jon,
Are you familiar with the economist Tim Taylor? He was a big part of my learning of economics many years ago. He teaches a course in economics at the teaching company. I bought it (well, I had the 2nd edition) and learned a lot. This guy is respected by BOTH the left and the right. I've seen Brad DeLong give him praise and Arnold Kling, for example. So the guy is seen as a kinda reasonable moderate.
Anyway, he has a blog. A couple of the topics as of late have been on inequality, especially the role education has played (going along with the productivity claim you made above). I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. The posts can be found here and here.
Paul, you have an excellent writing style. Very humble and not over stating the case, but thoughtful. Something HP tells me I could learn from. Probably true.
Jon, Paul,
May I propose a 3rd option? Instead of seeing it as all or none, I think you should consider what Milton Friedman said many years ago: the best government is a divided government. With Republicans controlling congress (the "purse") and Democrats controlling the White House (the "sword").
What was both the best economic years and least war mongering years? I would postulate the Clinton years. Republicans will point out that it was the first time in 50 years Republicans controlled Congress. Forcing Clinton to adopt Gingrich's 10 point plan is what really helped the economy. Democrats will point out that Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy.
But my hunch is that what really helped, is the divided government. The stars aligned perfectly!
Keep in mind that Friedman said that would be the best form of government BEFORE the Clinton administration.
So my goal for next election? Dont say this publicly, but its probably Republicans to gain congress, and Obama to keep the presidency.
So if Gore had been President, why think he would have been easier on the rest of the world?
My take is that if 9/11 had happened under Gore I think the war in Afghan would have happened though I think it would have played out differently. I don't believe the war in Iraq would have happened.
But so I may understand you better - could I say that then the issues of war and how we treat the rest of the world is your overriding issue? So to prevent any possible misunderstanding I am not saying it shouldn't be.
And I'm well aware that Clinton presided over massive bubble inflation. Clinton did some good things, but the 2008 crash was a direct consequence (in my view) of his government, which blocked regulation of the derivatives market. Not that this was the only cause, but it was a major cause. I'm not going to hang all the responsibility for that on Bush.
It's possible I've heard Taylor's lectures, though it would have been 10 years ago or longer. Listened as a right winger of course. The one I listened to I recall had a lot of good things to say about deregulation, especially Clinton's welfare reforms, but stopped short of saying Reagan's overall policies were a success. That annoyed me because I wanted him to tell me Reagan was awesome.
I think that's true, Paul. War is the key issue. I feel so bad for these poor people that I'd be ready to suffer with less of a welfare state if only the bombs would stop falling on them or the sanctions would end.
May I propose a 3rd option? Instead of seeing it as all or none, I think you should consider what Milton Friedman said many years ago: the best government is a divided government. With Republicans controlling congress (the "purse") and Democrats controlling the White House (the "sword").
Sure! You may propose it. I think you just did :-)
I can appreciate what you are saying and you could be right but I cannot do this at the moment.
If I may have a knee jerk reaction to it, until Republicans get rid of the evangelical, and IMO very powerful, wing of their party as well as the science-denying wing of the party I can't. I don't know how much is left if you remove these (overlapping) two.
I'd like to see universal health care, greater progressivity in tax code, support for stem-cell research, support for gay rights, and other progressive causes. And maybe I am foolish for thinking so but I think these are more likely to happen, or happen more quickly, with Democrat control. So for the time being, at least, I'd prefer Democrats to be in control w/ enough Republicans to keep things in check. This is all provincial.
If it is any consolation -
I would rather have split government over all Republican control.
HP - Just to whisper that Obama even has the chance to stay President underlines just how far this great country has fallen - I believe that Obama will go down as the worst President in our history - to be fair Bush in my opinion is only 1 step above Obama and will be in the top 10 worst also.
A Dem friend tossed a question on the table last night that I wanted to share with the group and to het your opinions. She had a 2 prong questions - #1 If Obama was not black would his defeat in 2011 even be in question? And #2 would he even have been elected in 2008?
I know that Obama got 95% of the black vote, but I am not sure if that was the tipping point to the Presidency or not - do we know?
I'm sure the black vote had an impact. But I don't think it was a deciding factor. Obama is really really popular. I think he won close to the highest percentage for a president in a long loong time. All of that can't be blamed on the Black vote. Remember, the black vote already goes with high percentages to the Democratic president - regardless of color. I think Bill Clinton got something like 75%+. Obama closer to 90%. So 15% of a minority group of voters, is not that much, when you factor it into the country as a whole.
There is alot to like about Obama - and really, here I am only speaking about economics, my preferred passion. Just look at how much he has changed from when he first started running. He used to be HORRIBLE at economics. I remember he stood in front of a union once and made very fundamental economic mistakes. The blogging world, including liberal economists, went crazy. But with time, with discussions, Im sure, with economic advisors, he quickly ramped up. This shit isnt easy. It's taken me years to grasp. But in a few short months, the guy probably knows more about economics than I do now. Try finding a mistake in what he says now, regarding economics. It's very very difficult. And I would say, REGARDLESS of the political party, what matters MOST in a president is that he atleast UNDERSTANDs economics. I'd much, much prefer, a Paul Krugman type as president - someone who doesnt share my political ideology, but whose understanding of economics is unquestionable - to say, somebody like Richard Nixon. Are there ANY Republicans with even a 70% understanding of economics? Certainly not Huckabee, or Palin. Maybe Romney, but even then, I have to look further (actually, Gary Johnson is my FAVORITE - by far - Republican, and if he had a chance, I'd vote for him over Obama anyday).
Then there is the black issue. I am conservative man. I hate minorities and liberals pointing to racism as a factor preventing upward growth. Its not the message you want a young kid growing up in the ghetto to hear. It's destructive. It robs them of hope. Obama being president - twice - helps change that. A black man in the office is a very strong argument to pull out when somebody pulls out the racism card.
And lastly, I was very impressed with Obama - and really democrats in general - by standing ground against unions on card checking. If Obama had passed card checking, then I probably couldn't have voted for him.
Of course, there are things I don't like. His views on vouchers are too education union friendly. This is a real problem for me. This is why I probably wont vote for him, though might hope he wins nonetheless.
And lastly, I doubt he will have control of everything - Republicans will certainly take alteast one of the houses of congress. And therefore, the crazier side of Obama - which usually comes in during the second term of a presidency, since presidents have less to lose - will be checked by Republicans. So the risk is smaller than previously.
One thing that does make me want to vote Republican though, is the fact that Republicans are sticking their political knecks out trying to reign in entitlements like medicare and social-security. I am not saying those programs should be abolished (I am still undecided on that) but they certainly should match inlays. Outlays should be equal to or less than inlays. Republicans are pushing hard for this. And as such, they will take a political hit. This makes me want to vote for them more, to compensate.
Anyway, this is all preliminary.
Just shooting from the hip here, I think being black was a huge factor. I could be totally wrong, but it seems so. It's not that he won the black vote, which of course he did. It's that he used being black as part of imagery and marketing. I think "Hope" ties in, because it's hope for America if we can overcome our racism and elect a black President. It's not that he was wearing it on his sleeve, but his marketing was very shrewd. I think it gave a lot of white people pleasure just voting for a black person and seeing him win. I can kind of understand that actually.
Obama won the award from the advertising industry for the best marketing campaign of 2008, beating out Apple Computer. This was a very intelligent campaign that distracted from the issues very nicely and packaged Obama like you might package toothpaste or whatever. Very well done from a marketing perspective. What that says about the state of our democracy is another matter.
Post a Comment