I finished the Klosterman book-greedily, almost thirstily polishing it off this morning. It was wonderful, of course-thought provoking and deep, without being complicated or wordy. Highly recommended.
Dan Carlin's most recent show concerned the battle between the President and Fox News. Carlin considered not the fairness of the acts, which so far have amounted to nothing more than name calling and childishness, but the monumental stupidity of them-Carlin, fairly, hopes that such stupidity is not manifest in the acts of government we don't hear so much about. Carlin sees the anti Fox move as bad politics-it both is a waste of time and serves to confirm all the worst thoughts your enemies have of you. (Don't forget that Nixon had journalists audited by the IRS and tried to get the Washington Post's licenses taken away. What Obama has done pales in comparison.) He then pivots to remind people that it is funny to hear conservatives ranting and raving about security and freedom now, when in 2003, these same people wanted us to march in lockstep and support our president. Carlin all along has been warning that these laws (notably the Patriot Act) were a bad idea no matter who is in power.
That's an idea I and everybody else needs to get behind-we need to evaluate things based on what they are, not based on what the last President did or what happened before. I'm guilty of that too-I angrily called out Tea Party demonstrators on this very space about whether or not they were against all excessive government spending, or whether they are against excessive government spending only when a black guy does it.
It shouldn't matter. Things should be evaluated on their merits.
I guess I'm not smart enough to form a consistent point of view on political things. Or maybe I'm just a coward.
"I'm guilty of that too-I angrily called out Tea Party demonstrators on this very space about whether or not they were against all excessive government spending, or whether they are against excessive government spending only when a black guy does it."
ReplyDeleteIf you got rid of the racists at the tea parties (and yes, of course there were some, we've seen the photos), most of the people would still be there.
Almost all of the "it is because he's a black guy" stuff is merely crying wolf.
There's no doubt that there would have been protests if it had been Edwards, Kerry, or Hillary elected instead of Obama elected. The "lying African" etc signs would be gone, but the rest would be there.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency is based on party, not race. We can also look at the left-wing "anti war" protestsrs, out in great numbers during Bush's presidency, but hardly heard from now. The difference is not that Bush was white, it is that Obama is a leftist, and is on "their side".
Would there be Tea Party protests under President Hillary or President Kerry? (President Edwards? Not sure if he wouldn't have been impeached by now.)Possibly. I'm not sure, though. The whole point of my line of argument (that I am now backing away from) is that Fox News didn't organize and trumpet "grassroots" protests over Medicare Part D spending, or tax cuts, or war profiteering, or privacy losses under the Patriot Act. Only now, with a Democrat in power, are they suddenly titans of fiscal rectitude.
ReplyDeleteThe black thing is a cheap shot, I admit. It would have been closer to the mark to say Tea Partiers are uniquely angry about spending by Democrats.
You are saying that "anti war" protesters rose up during the Bush presidency, but not now, even though the same two wars are being fought and the same awful privacy invasions are being used. You have a point there. Voices on the left are calling on Obama to be more forceful about ending the wars, but similar to Bush's base on the right, he can safely ignore them, if only for the time being. (I think it was Rove who said it about evangelicals-"Where else are they going to go?")
Another point there is that the major anti war protests were at or near the beginning of the war, when at least there was a theoretical chance of the decision being changed.
But overall, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what Bush did any more, even though I'm still angry about it. It only matters where we go from here.
I agree with you and Carlin that President Obama's decision to go after Fox News is bad politics.
ReplyDeleteYou point out that what Obama is doing "pales in comparison" to what Nixon did. A weak defense, no? Is Nixon really our standard for good operating procedure?
I appreciate your taking the time to address the racism charges leveled against tea party participants and conservatives. As dmarks says, no doubt some of the people who attended tea parties were motivated by racial hatred. They are a fringe minority with repulsive views.
I love the gist of your argument...we need to discuss individual ideas on their merits. The sweeping generalations and snarky insults serve only to divide, not unite (to borrow a political cliche).
Good point on Edwards. I had already thought he was an rather slimy fellow from having profited so much from frivolous lawsuits. What's the latest? He seems to be some sort of deadbeat dad.
ReplyDelete"Another point there is that the major anti war protests were at or near the beginning of the war, when at least there was a theoretical chance of the decision being changed."
Well, I remember several "anti-war" protests a year in my town. Through 2008 also. But there have been none this year, and I doubt there will be any.
I don't think that these protests, even when they approach a million, don't have much chance in changing any decisions.
It's a tiny amount: less than 1% compared to those who voted, and an even tinier percentage compared to the entire population.
Also, the anti-war protests had a huge element of irrational "We Hate Bush", enough to give a taint of them has hate-filled buffoons. Oh wait.... the anti-Obama protesters are just the same way.
What was the last great and untainted protest? I don't know, but I tend to look back toward Dr. King's March on Washington. An undeniable huge group, strong message and focus, and none of it was about hating someone.
I don't necessarily agree that the anti war protests were fueled by what the right wingers called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". (A wonderful phrase) There were signs and puppets and name calling-just like there is in any political protest. I don't think you can show a single example of a sign, chant, cartoon, puppet or t shirt as personally insulting as the Tea Party protests were against Obama.
ReplyDeleteMy argument (that the Tea Party opposes excessive government spending not out of hatred for government spending, but out of a personal hatred of Obama combined with the fact that it is a Democrat doing the spending) still stands, in my mind.
If Obama, say, invades Pakistan, ripping forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the thoughts of our allies, twisting and misusing intelligence, disciplining or firing advisers and generals who don't toe the line, and uses the bully pulpit as well as his advisers and allies in the press to call anyone who opposes him "traitors" who have to "watch what they say", and the left responds either with silence or joins in the condemnation of the opposition, if Obama does all this-then you have a point.
But again, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is, going forward, that we do the right thing.
I can't believe we're still talking about tea parties.
ReplyDeleteMichael believes the majority of tea partiers protest out of personal hatred for Obama in particular and Democrats in general. I disagee.
I attended a tea party and do not fit either category. I have tremendous personal respect for President Obama (and desparately wish the Republicans had someone so articulate, thoughtful, and suave). I live in Massachusetts, so it goes without saying that I have many close family and friends who are progressive Democrats. I love them though I disagree with them. I am not motivated by hate, but by a strong political point of view.
I'm as disgusted by Republicans (like the most recent President Bush) who recklessly spend public money without regard to long-term consequences (like our soaring national debt, the creation of asset bubbles, and the liklihood of future inflation). Had Democrats organized rallies opposing excessive government spending under Bush, I would have happily attended.
To dismiss people who oppose wasteful government spending as haters or racists is to shut down meaningful debate.
"I don't think you can show a single example of a sign, chant, cartoon, puppet or t shirt as personally insulting as the Tea Party protests were against Obama."
ReplyDeleteThey were by and large just as bad, except for the lack of the racial element.