Moonbats to the left of me, Wingnuts to the right… Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
– with apologies to Stealer’s Wheel
Have you noticed that people on the left have trouble these days talking with people on the right – and vice versa? Maybe, just a little? Why is that? Well, its because those guys on the other side are a bunch of wingnuts, that’s why! Or, if you are starting on the right, it is because those guys on the left are all moonbats!
Before we delve into this any further let’s do a quick opinion survey:
Who is more radical (far from the center) in their political views:
A: Rush Limbaugh
B: Rachel Maddow
Which TV personality has the greatest bias in their political views?
A: Glen Beck
B: Keith Olbermann
Which politician has the most radical (out of the mainstream) agenda?
A: Sarah Palin
B: Barak Obama
Which TV Network is more biased?
A: MSNBC
B: FOX News
Which term describes you best?
A: Conservative
B: Liberal
Here is my prediction. You either chose “A” every time or you chose “B” every time. I doubt there are many BABAB or ABABA types out there – unless perhaps you think this is all about experimental design.
I think this has a lot to do with why we are having trouble talking to each other.
The inspiration for this post came yesterday, in the midst of a heated discussion on the Rutherford Lawson blog. A generally reasonable right-winger had complained about some Hollywood “radicals” on the left (specifically Bette Midler, Cher, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Janeane Garofalo). I countered with a list of equally far-right people – and actually MORE far right in my opinion (specifically Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter). It quickly degraded into a bit of a row, each of us claiming that the folks from the other side were more radical and out of the mainstream.
Who was right?
I was – of course – but that isn’t really so interesting.
The more interesting question is “How can this occur?” How is it that two relatively reasonable people can complain, in good faith, that the other side is always more radical?
The short answer is that we tend to “fix” where the political middle is relative to our own position. We tend to believe that we personally are closer to the middle than people on the other side.
The longer answer is that we all suffer from the false consensus bias.
Social Psychologists commonly study cognitive bias – a predictable tendency to come to false conclusions in specific situations. There are many types of bias, but in the present case the false consensus bias is most applicable.
The false consensus bias is the tendency to believe that most other people agree with us. As noted here, people tend to believe that their own view is held by the majority of others, regardless of what that view is. If confronted with evidence to the contrary (in the form of polls or something similar) people will typically attack the “evidence” instead of admitting that their own view is out of the mainstream.
So – which is more radical and biased – MSNBC or Fox News?
The answer - or more accurately your answer – depends on your existing political views.
Applied to politics, the false consensus bias tells us that we will believe our own political views to be more representative of the mainstream than they in fact are. Suppose that we could measure the “liberal” versus “conservative” difference along a single dimension, like this:
(Lib)——————(Middle)—————-(Con)
My own political views, in reality, might be represented like this:
Me——————–(Middle)
However, my perception of my own views would look more like this:
———-Me———-(Middle)
Let’s throw Glen Beck into the picture. In reality, our political views might look like this:
Me——————–(Middle)——————————–Beck
But when we apply the false consensus bias, my perception looks more like this:
———-Me———-(Middle)—————————————-Beck
In other words, Beck seems more radical to me – more divorced from the mainstream – because I view myself as closer to the center than I really am.
If you have followed along until this point you should easily be able to work it in reverse – noting how someone on the right might see a liberal commentator – a Keith Olbermann – as more radically divorced from the mainstream than he truly is.
What are the implications for this analysis?
On some level, it does not bode well for civil political discourse. Political conversation these days seems to quickly devolve into the shouting of extreme labels – Socialist! Fascist! Moonbat! Wingnut! We all seem very ready to buy into the assumption that the other side is absolutely crazy and out of touch, while our own views are so much more sane, so much more in the mainstream.
So – the next time you find yourself ready to label the other side as extreme, it is probably wise to remember the false consensus bias.
Well……. except Palin and Beck and Limbaugh and Dobbs and Coulter really are radical wingnut whackjobs…..
Tags: conservative, democrat, False Consensus Bias, left-wing, liberal, psychology, republican, right-wing, Social Psychology
October 1, 2009 at 10:03 am |
Another way of looking at it is from a moderate vs. radical paradigm.
A moderate looks at all sides of an issue before making a decision. A radical does not.
A moderate generally doesn’t accept things on faith alone.
A moderate favors scientific discovery over faith.
A moderate doesn’t elevate people to god-like status.
And more. I need to get to work.
October 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
Ben – I actually agree with you, but I also mistrust my own judgment if that makes any sense….
For example, you say A moderate favors scientific discovery over faith.
I agree – I value scientific judgment and I think my views are moderate – but I know some people who would call my reliance on science radically out of the mainstream. I believe in evolution (to the extent that one can believe in any scientific theory). That puts me in the scientific mainstream – but quite a few people would claim I am out of the general mainstream. I have even been accused of pushing a radical atheist political agenda.
Who is right? I like to think I am – but I don’t know that I have any objective way to make that claim.
– hp
October 1, 2009 at 10:11 am |
I have a problem with this scale being one-dimensional, whereas most people’s beliefs are somewhere on a two-dimensional matrix. Or maybe that’s only some people, which might be part of the problem. I happen to believe many items in Obama’s program are perfectly sensible, and some I find less sensible. But it does seem that for the most vocal commentators out there today everything is black or white (no pun intended). I’m reminded of the words of the late, great Jacob Bronowski (quoting from memory here), “Just stop to consider, in the name of everything, that you many not be right.” (Maybe someone will take the trouble to look up that quote). The problem today is that political discourse has degenerated to, “You’re wrong and I’m right! Na na na!” No one stops to consider whether the other side may be right.
October 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
John – I don’t like the unidimensionality of it either, but I had enough trouble graphically depicting one dimension – multi-dimensional space would have killed me. I think the analysis still holds, though, regardless of how many dimensions we include.
– hp
October 1, 2009 at 10:41 am |
HP I don’t fit in the box I need a C for a couple.
FWIW I’m:
A: Limbaugh
B Olbermann
C neither
C neither
A Conservative
And at that the comparisons are not quality.
Limbaugh should be matched with Olbie although I guess Beck does work.
The Obama Palin fails on a lot of levels and thats coming from a guy that dislikes Palin with a degree of passion.
Otherwise I liked the closing parts of the post.
October 1, 2009 at 12:17 pm |
Alfie – yeah – I knew there would be some people who would want a “C” option. Glad you like the rest, though…
– hp
October 1, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
Here’s my answers: A, B, A, B, B
Well I can tell you right now that republicans display,false consensus bias. The reason why is because we have elections to not only tell us who the next president should be, but where the country is in their ideology. Based on election results, it’s pretty clear that the majority of America thought the democratic policies were better. So republicans thinking a small group of townhall protesters put together by GOP organizations and the fact that FOX News ratings are high gives them their evidence that the “majority of the country” is on their side is ridiculous.
We don’t have to worry about conservatives attacking the evidence because they hardly read it first. Therefore, even arguing with some conservatives is a lost cause.
It seems I should explain why I think Keith Olbermann is more biased then Glenn Beck. If you watch Glenn Beck, he goes after democrats and republicans that doesn’t fit with his views. He is seriously just acting crazy for attention and money. And most the stuff he says is so crazy that I don’t think he really believes it. Keith Olbermann on the other hand believes everything he says, he refuses to have republicans on his show that express different views, in my opinion he’s the worst kind of politically biased TV personality. Dude sits on his show, attacks republicans and brings his liberal friends on to chat about how stupid the GOP is. Though, I might agree with some of the things he says, it’s really in bad taste to not present the other side, because if that’s the case then he should have a reality or talk show on daytime TV. I’ll stop here on that note. They’re both extreme though.
October 1, 2009 at 12:30 pm |
Sensico…
First – thanks for the RT – my very first!
I knew I shouldn’t have put the survey at the start – I guess there are some BABAB types out there. Discussion on Rutherford’s blog sometimes seems to suggest otherwise, though.
I don’t watch Olbermann either, for many of the same reasons. I really prefer the type of multi-partisan panel CNN typically has – with three on each side. I think you get a lot more out of it than if you simply listen to what you already believe.
– hp
October 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
Sensico – BTW – glad you mentioned the false consensus bias as applied to tea parties. Tea partiers seem to think they are representative of “real America” when polls seem to show exactly the opposite. I had that in my first draft but took it our because I couldn’t think of a liberal equivalent and wanted the post to be more balanced.
– hp
October 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
omg, I thought I responded to your first comment today while at school. Must have forgot to hit the submit button. I think I was going to say something to the effect of happy I’m your first RT. And the conservatives (some) on R’s blog are way far to the right that whoever argues back automatically appears far to the left. I too enjoy the multi-partisan panels on CNN. I don’t watch cable news but I try to catch clips online.
I must admit I was tempted to pick a non-existent C option. I can’t think a liberal equivalent to conservative false consensus bias either. Must be a republican thing, lol, just kidding.
October 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
A couple of comments. First, the conservative on my blog who will remain un-named is not nearly as reasonable as you think. It was very kind and charitable for you to say so. He admires your intellect and your class (as in politeness, not position in society) and so he has been on very good behavior with you.
At first, I scoffed at the way Sensico answered your quiz but upon further thought, I agree with her. Beck is a clown, a dangerous clown but a clown nonetheless. Olbermann is dead serious in his criticisms. Does he play fair by only inviting sympathizers on his show? Absolutely not. I still love him for the catharsis he provides. I see virtually no one as good at puncturing the sheer idiocy of so many conservative spokespeople. This may be a credit to his staff and not him but he is the effective messenger. A case in point was yesterday when he quoted Beck as saying the Vancouver Olympics lost the city money when they haven’t even begun yet. He finds this kind of brain-death with such ease.
With that said, I have to argue with Sensico’s assumption that elections express the will of the people. There is a distinct possibility, especially in the 2008 election that many conservatives simply did not vote because they hated Obama and could not stomach either McCain, Palin or both. While it is convenient to make a temperature reading of the country based on election results, I think such a conclusion is far from air-tight. And judging from the some of the nutty displays at the tea parties, I’d wager a good percentage of those folks didn’t vote and probably never vote.
As usual though, I must commend you for a thoughtful analysis and I do agree with your basic premise. We all place ourselves either at the norm or close to it and the further someone is from our view, the more extreme they are.
October 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
I was always taught that if you don’t vote you can’t complain. If teabaggers didn’t care enough to vote, then why should they be taken seriously.
That whole “can’t stomach McCain” is crap. First, there’s no way people should get that emotional over a election to where they would not participate in one of the greatest displays of democracy and American tradition. It’s simple, may not fully like McCain or Palin but his views are closer to theirs, not to mention there’s always extremist third party candidates.
Elections are a way to get your voice heard. They didn’t wan’t to “talk” during the election, they weren’t “mad enough” then (knowing Obama’s agenda was going to be healthcare, stimulus, etc,.).
October 2, 2009 at 7:29 am |
That whole “can’t stomach McCain” is crap. First, there’s no way people should get that emotional over a election to where they would not participate in one of the greatest displays of democracy and American tradition. It’s simple, may not fully like McCain or Palin but his views are closer to theirs, not to mention there’s always extremist third party candidates.
Sensico – during the last election I started paying close attention to the opinion polling process – really for the first time. It is really fascinating stuff, and there are some very good, very sophisticated blogs that concentrate on how polls work and what conclusions can be drawn and how predictions can be made (fivethirtyeight.com and pollster.com are the two best).
Reading these poll sites taught me a lot of things – one of which is the “enthusiasm gap” I mentioned in my response to Rutherford. Suppose a poll shows that two candidates have an equal number of voters supporting them – but voters on one side are more enthusiastic about their candidate than the other. All else held equal, the candidate with enthusiastic supporters will win because his/her voters will make more of an effort to get to the polls. In this last election, Obama had a huge enthusiasm gap. Part of this is because Palin turned off so many moderate voters, part of this is because McCain turned off so many conservative voters, and part of this is because Obama really increased the enthusiasm level in the black community (as well as other traditionally disinterested communities).
You have only voted in one Presidential election, right? It is so exciting the first time around that it is hard to fathom ever not voting – but indeed the excitement declines as you get older. If voting means getting up earlier, or going out in bad weather, or standing in long lines, etc – people will often just choose to skip the whole thing. This is particularly true when you are less enthusiastic about your candidate.
So – yes – elections do take the pulse of public opinion – but they are far from a pure measure.
– hippieprof
October 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Sensico is forgetting her PoliSci lessons on the electoral college and congressional representation.
I live in California. California traditionally gives all of its many electoral votes to democrats. Except for patriotic duty, there is little reason for non-democrats in California to vote in a presidential election.
(And before anyone mentiones Reagan, I will remind them that he was from Ca.)
Both California senators are democrats (Boxer and Feinstein).
So the electoral college doesn’t express my will, as it gives all its votes to democrats. And my senate representation doesn’t express my will.
But I live in a conservative section of the state, and my House rep. is a republican who has run unopposed for several elections.
So who better expresses my will in our federal government?
That is exactly why we have the system that we have.
This idea that the country elected Barack Obama so his ideas better express the will of the American people is simply juvenile.
October 2, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
yeah, I guess your little retort would make sense if he hadn’t won the popular vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
October 2, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
And I guess your big Wikipedia reasearch didn’t clue you in on the nuance of what I said.
Many people don’t vote because they feel it is fruitless, and they know that the reality is that we are not a direct democracy. That isn’t an idea I personally subscribe to, but it is the reality. If the popular vote counted, we don’t know how that would have effected voting turnouts in any election, or how that effected turnout would have effected the eventual results.
Your overall logic would have us dissolve congress because a popular victory for POTUS is good enough to express the will of America.
Of course, since Obama can’t even rally his own party to push through junk legislation anymore, I could see why his die-hard supporters would take the stance you have. After all, the will of 53% of the voters should be good enough to marginalize and discount the other 47%, right?
The system is working exactly the way it was designed to work. All the way down to the town hall level. You can go around pushing the party line about organized outrage and Fox News all you want. The fact is, things were set up this way for a reason. And that reason transcends any party or media outlet.
It is the foundation of American political thought going back to the Federalist Papers.
October 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Many people don’t vote because they feel it is fruitless, and they know that the reality is that we are not a direct democracy. That isn’t an idea I personally subscribe to, but it is the reality. If the popular vote counted, we don’t know how that would have effected voting turnouts in any election, or how that effected turnout would have effected the eventual results.
You make a good point Red – voter turnout to at least some extent is tied to the perception that “my vote makes a difference” – and that in itself will vary from state to state. If a person is in a very red or very blue state there is relatively little motivation to vote because the outcome will almost certainly be same whether you vote or not.
This is less true in swing states – and especially after Florida in 2000 it is apparent that every vote (or just about every vote) can make a difference.
Democrats often claim to want to scrap the electoral college. Republicans typically defend it – as you say above “the system is working exactly the way it was designed to work…” I have always wondered, though, if that had more to do with perceived political advantage. I suspect that if Democrats felt that they would benefit from the current system and Republicans felt they would not then those views would shift rapidly.
– hp
October 2, 2009 at 7:16 am |
A couple of comments. First, the conservative on my blog who will remain un-named is not nearly as reasonable as you think.
Oh – you are probably right – it just made a much better story for me to call him reasonable …
I think you are correct about elections and “expressing the will of the people” – Obama had a huge “enthusiasm gap” in his favor, and that translates to better voter turnout. The enthusiasm gap has seemingly shifted to the teaparty crowd which could prove problematic if trat trend continues.
– hp
October 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
Sensico: “We don’t have to worry about conservatives attacking the evidence because they hardly read it first.”
How is it that town hall protesters are able to cite proposed legislation if they don’t read it first?
Do they have the same 6th sense that congress has, and are able to form opinions on things they admit to not having read?
Meanwhile, your president shows how much he has read by stating a penalty isn’t a tax and the actual bill calls it a tax.
October 2, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
you can claim to “cite” all you want to, the problem is that when you spread lies about about the legislation, that tends to suggest ya didn’t read the legislation.
October 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
Great point. I’d like to “cite” a few examples to support your claim about people not reading legislation.
President Obama’s claim:Health care reform will not require anyone to drop their current coverage
Called out:An independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that as many as 114 million Americans could lose their current coverage and instead end up on a government-run plan under House Democrats’ proposal (H.R. 3200.) Even the most conservative estimates say millions could be shifted to a government-run plan.
President Obama’s claim:He pledges that reform will not add to the deficit, not even a little
Called out: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the House Democrats’ plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years,
President Obama’s claim: President insists that middle-class families won’t see a tax increase – as he did repeatedly during his recent appearance on ABC’s This Week
Called out: On page 167 of H.R. 3200, the title of section 401 reads: “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” The Associated Press didn’t mince words when it began a fact check piece, “Memo to President Obama: it’s a tax.”
You can read the rest here if you wish but you probably won’t.
http://ourobamanation.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/fact-checking-president-obamas-health-care-claims/
In keeping with the spirit of the main topic of this post, you will rail against me for presenting facts and you will immediately shut your mind to the truth of the matter.
October 2, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
Sensico, do you sincerely believe that every American who has gone to a town hall meeting to speak out against the proposed legislation on health care reform has cited “disinformation”?
I truely hope that you are just being obnoxious and difficult. I can identify with that. But if you honestly believe that it’s just a collection of lies being cited, then I am afraid you are missing out on a whole lot of reality.
There is more to what is going on in the town halls of this country than what you and I see on our respective media preferences. I hope you are aware of that.
October 3, 2009 at 1:29 am |
There are no political advantages.
I stopped researching at 1892 presidential election and I found only 1 where the person who won the popular vote was not elected—the 2000 election. It may be the first and only.
October 3, 2009 at 1:38 am |
I think Hayes over Tilden in 1876 is another example – but you are correct that there are very few….
– hippieprof
October 3, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
John Quincy Adams is the first example … 1824 — over Andrew Jackson. Really pissed Jackson off by the way.
October 3, 2009 at 10:15 am |
What I continue to see in this “debate” is a propensity to shoot the messenger by engaging in name calling – “clown” “crazy” “biased”.
I would prefer to see debate on the substance of the message rather than the political leanings or beliefs of a talking head.
Refute the message with facts. Above all else remove the emotion and think.
October 3, 2009 at 11:42 am |
Can reporting of fact be conducted without the other side citing radicalism?
Define “radical” in this context.
October 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
Ben, this is an oxymoron. Lewin is entirely owned by UHG. Get real.
October 3, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
Rutherford, it stands. Having been acquired by UHG in 2007, the Lewin Group remains non-partisan and maintains editorial and analytical independence from its parent company. Both Republican and Democrats often use the group. Democrat Senator Ron Wyden used Lewin Group studies to support his Healthy Americans Act. Republican Eric Cantor has also used their services. Several Lewin Group studies have been used to argue both for and against the so-called “public option”. You couldn’t do that if the studies were biased as only one side could be supported if it were. Getting real right back atcha.
October 15, 2009 at 8:10 am |
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx#
Where’s the middle?
October 21, 2009 at 10:55 am |
The false consensus bias is made all the more strong by the ideological sorting by region/class/profession that we are currently undergoing. If you live in an area and/or work in a profession which is predominated by a single narrow part of the political spectrum, that serves to strongly reinforce the false consensus bias.
I think we increasingly view other people as insane owing to our own hubris. We tend to assume that our knowledge and our lives encompass everyone else’s. We tend to assume we know exactly what challenges other people face and exactly what tradeoffs they should make in every circumstance. When people act differently than we think they should, we don’t ask, “why did they do that?” or even better, “what do they know that I don’t?” we instead simply assume they are stupid because they didn’t make the same decision we think we would make in their shoes.
I found the recent Limbaugh quote hoax very disturbing. I would not have imagined that so many people, especially people in major institutions would believe automatically and without checking that (1) a major American media looked back fondly on slavery and that they approve of political assassination (2) that he would voice such ideas if he had them and that (3) as a practical matter if he had said it, it would not have been world wide news within the hour. Clearly, they fell for the hoax because it appealed to their own deeply seated prejudices about a wide swath of America. This disturbs me because all those leftists clearly think a big chunk of their fellow Americans are just flat evil. What could they justify doing to people they view as so beyond the pale?
As the scope of the state increases in our lives, these cognitive distortions will become more and more dangerous. When politics begins to determine your access to jobs, housing, education, medical care, information etc, politics becomes absolutely central to people’s lives and others who disagree politically become viewed as threats to everything people have or aspire to. When people get afraid the cognitive biases grow even stronger. They are even more likely to view everything in Us-versus-them. A death spiral develops.
For this reason, I strongly doubt America will survive should we adopt the European corporatist model. It one thing to have politics at the center of people’s lives in a uniform, monocultural society and another to have it at the center in a diverse, multicultural society.
How can we have a functioning democratic corporatist state in which 30%+ on left believe that the 30% who think like Limbaugh look back fondly on slavery? How could leftists possibly tolerate having such people have a say over their food, clothing, shelter, medical care, jobs etc? Their only option would be to push such people out of the polity completely so that “insane” people won’t have life and death power over them.
Things will only get more ugly from here on out as we slide farther and father into the corporatist state.
October 21, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
RE:work in a profession which is predominated by a single narrow part of the political spectrum
The news media comes to mind… 90% of it.
RE:I found the recent Limbaugh quote hoax very disturbing.
MSNBC, CNN and ESPN’s Michael Wilbon should be staring down the barrel of a slander suit. Inexcusable, irresponsible, shallow journalism.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSYhE8g1aSI)
“This is not about the NFL, it’s not about the St. Louis Rams, it’s not about me,” Limbaugh said. “This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.”
But hey, what can you expect from the PR arm of the DNC? The irony here is over the question of weather Limbaugh is “fit” to be an NFL owner in the face of the recent signing of animal abuser and accessory to dog-sodomy, Michael Vick.
RE:For this reason, I strongly doubt America will survive
There is on-going debate America will survive Obama’s growing deficit, the costs for health care reform, the cap and trade bill looming on the horizon, and the UN Climate Change treaty he threatens to sign in Copenhagen in December 2009, much less a European corporatist model which has yet to fully materialize.
Is Obama Poised to Cede U.S. Sovereignty?
( http://ourobamanation.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/is-obama-poised-to-cede-u-s-sovereignty/ )
RE:Things will only get more ugly from here on out as we slide farther and father into the corporatist state.
Right, you are. There is a chance in 2010 to apply the brakes to prevent this train-wreck. If the current version of the health care reform bill is signed, it will prove to be the political nail in every coffin for those who voted for its passage. Then, the Dems will turn their eyes toward Nancy Pelosi.
October 21, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
I forgot to mention Limbaugh blamed Smith, the union leader, and civil rights leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson for derailing his ownership bid.
DeMaurice Smith, a Washington-based attorney who is now the executive director of the NFL Players Association. DeMaurice is an NFL outsider, but a very influential person in the corridors of law and power, thanks to his close ties with President Barack Obama.
Wouldn’t be interesting if, given the White Houses current war on Fox News and other conservatives disagreeing with their policies, we find the administration had a hand in Limbaugh’s rebuke.
October 21, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
Shannon I agree with much of what you say here. The animosity between right and left is so great that neither side ever really hears what the other is saying. I fall into this trap myself from time to time.
I do have one spot of ignorance that perhaps you can help with. I’m a bit fuzzy on what you mean by the corporatist state. Do you mean a state over-influenced by corporate interests? Please elaborate.
P.S. HP hope you don’t mind if I use your forum to learn a bit.
October 21, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
Rutherford – no problem at all – I haven’t been very active myself the last couple of weeks (midterm crunch!) and I am happy people are still keeping the conversation going.
– hp
P.S. I too am a little confused by what Shannon means. Based on other things I have seen him write I do not think he is anti-corporate – at least not in a traditional sense.
October 21, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
A corporatist state is one in which the government picks economic winners and losers. Think of a runaway military-industrial complex that encompasses every major economic activity. In practice, this means that few privileged corporation and associated unions grow very large and operate under special laws or conditions mandated by the state that prevent any effective competition. France and Japan are good examples of corporatist states. France is much further down road. Major French corporations like Total are giant relative to the French economy and the French government often acts like a subsidiary of the company. It’s almost impossible for a small business to grow large in France. There is no French version of Ben and Jerry’s or Google. The government does not allow upstart businesses to threatened the privileged giants.
We’ve recently surged down that road by tying the fortunes of corporations and politicians together more closely than ever before. Right now, success in the financial industry depends heavily on ones relationship to politicians. If this isn’t decoupled soon, it will be bad.
October 21, 2009 at 11:37 pm |
Shannon….
Sorry for not getting back earlier – I have been busy at work and I haven’t been blogging much lately.
First – I also found the Limbaugh hoax disturbing. I hate it when people on “my side” use such tactics because frankly it takes attention away from the real issues.
You go on to say:
This disturbs me because all those leftists clearly think a big chunk of their fellow Americans are just flat evil. What could they justify doing to people they view as so beyond the pale?
I think this probably true – I know quite a few people on the left who indeed do think that folks on the right are evil. Having grown up in a right-wing family, I know that this is not true. Principled conservatism is indeed an ethically sound position.
But – it goes both ways. I also know, from personal experience – that quite a few people on the right think those of us on the left are pure evil. I have seen such claims made firsthand from people in my family. You yourself have called me “dangerous” in the past. People call Obama a Nazi, and think he is trying to indoctrinate our youth. They think he is a socialist intent in setting up some kind of communist dictatorship.
In my opinions, the false beliefs held by the right are just as bad as those held by the right.
I think we agree that demonizing the opposition is a dangerous strategy – effective in the short term perhaps, but likely to damage the whole system in the long term. But…. I think both sides use the technique. Nobody has clean hands here.
– hippieprof
October 22, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
Nobody has clean hands here.
Yes, but there is the critical issue of scale. Hostility and suspicion of one’s political foes is natural, even healthy in moderation but when grows to extreme it becomes actively dangerous. Throughout history, there has been episodes in which one part of the political spectrum goes insane. The Red Scare is probably the most recent. I worry that the building frustration on the left might lead to something similar. Certainly, there seems to be a high level of tolerance for political corruption, abuse of power, lying and personal destruction as long as the targets are non-leftists.
On the other hand, perhaps I am exaggerating things. I believe that the accusation of racism is a serious one, especially when it goes so far as claiming that a person looks back positively on slavery. I did assume that leftists feel that it is equally a serious accusation. Further, if I believed that such people where position of great influence and that they represented the beliefs of 30%+ of population, I would be planning on fighting another civil war. I kind of assumed that leftist felt the same way and would react just as forcefully if they believed enough people felt that way.
If, however, this is just a more extreme version of leftists causally making horrible accusation about people who disagree with them, then obviously, the episode doesn’t mean they’re dangerously deluded, it just means they’re hypocritical cynics who will say or do anything to gain and keep power.
I do worry though. How long can hear some group repeatedly describe you as evil before you can legitimately ask if they really believe it? How long before you can legitimately begin to worry they will act upon that belief?
October 22, 2009 at 8:53 pm |
Shannon –
Your point reminds me of what my girlfriend worries about. From her perspective, she sees a backlash against the left’s obvious social tendencies which is coupled with an effort to demonize as HP puts it. She sees an ultra-right “rebound” which dove-tails into your point.
If, as you fear, the group on the right repeatedly hears the demonizing of the right (war on Fox News, failed policies of the right, etc) and then begin to legitimately ask themselves how long they can wait before they act, well, perhaps my girlfriend isn’t too far off base.
October 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
AAABB here.
October 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
OK Shannon, now that I understand your point, I think the first thing we need is campaign finance reform. I believe this is where the sick relationship between Washington and big business starts.
The only way in which I think I might question your doomsday scenario is to compare our laws regarding monopolies with those of France and other countries. Don’t we have built in protections for small business?
October 22, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
R-
You may have missed another culprit which I will identify for you; the sick relationship between Obama and George Soros, The Open Society Institute, Democracy Alliance, MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation and Media Matters.
He uses the complicated political operation of the above organizations to buy influence among some liberal politicians and smear people with whom he disagrees.
Most of Soros’ political money flows through his ‘Open Society Institute,’ which has given nearly $20 million to the ‘Tides Foundation.’ Tides, in turn, has donated millions to the propaganda outfit ‘Media Matters,’ which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits and media people.
Recently, MoveOn.org has launched a campaign to encourage Democrats to stay off Fox News.
As you may or may not be aware, MoveOn is an American non-profit progressive, liberal public policy advocacy group and political action committee which has raised millions of dollars for candidates of the Democratic Party in the United States. Formed in response to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, it has been cited in some accounts as a factor which helped propel the Democratic Party to power in the 2006 midterm elections.
According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004,
“The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee.”
So while it might be of some benefit to get big business out of the election process, don’t forget the big businesses mentioned above.
October 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm |
“How long can hear some group repeatedly describe you as evil before you can legitimately ask if they really believe it? How long before you can legitimately begin to worry they will act upon that belief?”
This is exactly how I feel when I hear Obama’s intentions constantly called into question by right-wingers. It is one thing to disagree with Obama’s policies, it is quite another to say that he wants to destroy our country. I’ve heard that one too many times and I’ve grown very weary of it.
October 23, 2009 at 9:01 am |
Whether he intentionally wants to or not, all you have to do is look at the evidence piling up before us which is a direct result of his policies and thinking.
This nation is on the brink of bankruptcy. There are financial analysts advocating going short on the dollar and long on gold. They are publishing articles about the threat of hyper-inflation within the next 18 to 24 months. There is an insane willingness by him and his followers to spend money we don’t have. We are staring at a cap and trade bill next year which will shackle this country’s ability to compete in the world while we pay for the privilege. Unemployment is argued to be in double-digits. Many other analyst agree his economic bailout plan is itself a failure. There are talks of another one… another failure.
So while you declare you’re growing tired of hearing a bit of reality, it suggests an inability on your part to accept reality. You seem sold on the idea Obama can do no wrong, that his narcissism, inexperience and social organizing skills are enough to carry the day. They aren’t.
As such my advice is that you continue to ignore the facts. You’ll be happier.
October 23, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
Ben, you are focused on spending and rightfully so. Could you explain to me why most conservatives look at every aspect of the budget EXCEPT military spending? You’re eager to send 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Ever done an ROI analysis n it? Of course we now know the Iraq war was fought off the books (irresponsible if not downright criminal). We still have troops in Japan and Germany. Why?
Tell me how much you’re willing to trim out of the Pentagon and then maybe I can grant you more credibility on other areas of the budget.
October 23, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
RE:Could you explain to me why most conservatives look at every aspect of the budget EXCEPT military spending?
Sigh – another blanket statement.
Traditionally, conservatives are advocates of a strong military. liberals, not so much.
Since getting into office, Gates, under Obama has canceled the F-22 Raptor program. In an 6 April 2009 press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is recommending the cancellation of the planned second ABL aircraft and that the program return to a Research and Development effort.
But even Republicans are realists which goes to nullify that blanket statement.
In May 2008, the $11 billion Crusader artillery system, targeted for extinction by White House budget-cutters but fiercely defended by high-ranking Army leadership, was formally killed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Cheney reduced the number of Stealth bombers the Pentagon requested to 75 from 132.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s decided in January 1991 to cancel the A-12 attack plane because of delays and cost overruns.
RE:You’re eager to send 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan.
Yep, and I’d be willing to wager more Americans are killed while Obama stutters and stammers on this decision. You had better hope nothing happens to our boys here and abroad by Obamas failure to support them.
RE:Ever done an ROI analysis n it?
Nope. Have you? What is the actual ROI on war and how does one actually begin that calculation while the variables are still yet to be fully known?
What was the ROI of developing and using the bomb in the Pacific War? It’s a lot easier to do that calculation; it saved millions of lives.
Yes, war is hell, but god damn it, once you start to wage it, win the mother and win it sooner than later. Never waiver. Ever.
RE:We still have troops in Japan and Germany. Why?
By the nature of the question, it’s clear you don’t understand the history of those wars.
In a nut-shell, it’s generally called an instrument of surrender and is a legally binding document. We were involved in setting the conditions for both of those surrenders.
There is also the Cold War and the importance of our continued presence in the European theater. NATO was a large part of that.
RE:Tell me how much you’re willing to trim out of the Pentagon and then maybe I can grant you more credibility on other areas of the budget.
Unrealistic of you to ask me that. I have little or no access to the Pentagon’s budget or knowledge of areas of classified R&D programs.
In general, I would probably be thinking about the daily (cyber, verbal, literal and overt) threats coming from China, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran,
Islamic nations engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, other nations which support them (Venezuela, Cuba) and then make a decision beginning with that. That sounds pretty real to me.
And you? Stick a finger in the air? “Feel” like America is the bad guy and wonder why we can’t “just get along” as Rodney King puts it?
Wake up.
October 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
RE:I can grant you more credibility on other areas of the budget.
Don’t. Just look at Obama’s with incredibility.
He deserves it.
February 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
Did my old friend HippieProf retire? Though I thought you the academic loon (about 90% of them are), I did find you an interesting loon…
Hope all finds you well at the university old friend. Rock on!
February 3, 2010 at 12:09 pm |
Tex – no – not retired. I put myself on brief hiatus because of some family-related stress (two deaths in or close to the family, separated by 3 weeks, plus serious illness or accidents with two other family members). I just didn’t have the energy to obsess about politics on top of all of that.
Things have (hopefully) settled down and I will soon be back in the fray. I have been composing articles in my head for the last couple of weeks – and I suspect I will start posting again later this week.
God knows the freakin’ Democrats need me…..
– hp
February 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm |
HP, you know you’ve made a positive impact when die-hard conservative Tex Taylor actually misses you.
BTW, I compose all my articles in my head before committing them to “paper”. It’s an odd process but it has always worked for me.
P.S. Good to have you back and sorry you’ve been through so much lately!
February 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm |
happy to hear that! you were one of my fav. bloggers and I thought Tex and DR scared you away with their stupidness
February 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm
OK – I am back – new blog just posted. Hopefully there is something there to offend just about anybody….
February 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I just read it HP. Great post. I’m fighting a chest cold but will comment as soon as I can! Welcome back!
July 23, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
1 independent voice about BBC within the Television show. He features a truly tough immigration law scheme. This individual graduated on the Harvard College. At this time he has his one Airwaves Show. He do not like the particular U . s citizens president.