———————————————————-

Let’s listen in on a short conversation between Lefty and Righty.

Both are Lefty and Right are elderly and both are handicapped veterans – Righty lost his left leg in the war and Lefty lost his right leg. They are sitting in their wheelchairs in the activity room of the local VA senior center. Righty is clearly agitated and could use some Valium. Lefty is a bit too mellow and probably needs to have his Valium prescription reduced a bit….. or else he should share with Righty…..

Righty: I am tired of the government stealing my hard earned money and giving it away to others! That is socialism! This is a free country and it is my money and I should have the freedom to spend it as I wish!

Lefty: Sometimes those of us who have more need to give some of what we have to those of us who have less. It is the right and moral thing to do….

Righty: Don’t talk to me about “right and moral” things! I give away plenty of my money to charity – but on a volunteer basis, and I donate my time too! It should be my choice to do that – it is not up to the government to do it for me!

Lefty: You may give to charity – but charity alone is never enough. The need always exceeds what people are willing to give voluntarily. Do you think that people would give enough to cover the need?

Righty: The need only exceeds the charity because you lefty commie bastards have created a welfare state and you have taught people to depend on it! If the welfare state didn’t exist then charity would go to the small number of people who really need it! The rest of the lazy buggers would just have to get to work!

Lefty: So you think that volunteerism would be sufficient to support the social needs of this nation if the lazy people would just get to work?

Rightly: Yes! If the damned liberals would stop teaching them to rely on handouts they would have to get to work!

Lefty: Hmmm…. So – we have voluntary food pantries, and various churches and organizations like the Salvation Army feed people at the mission – and that should be enough to take care of the need – that is as long as the lazy folks start working?

Righty: Exactly! Remember, with the lazy folks all working there wouldn’t be as much need for all those “social services” and the government could get out of the food stamp and welfare business! Besides, it’s unconstitutional anyway!

Lefty: Unconstitutional?

Righty: Yes, unconstitutional! The Constitution says the government can raise taxes to have a Post Office and to raise an army for defense and a bunch of other stuff but the Constitution says nothing about providing people with food!

Lefty: But the Constitution says that the government can provide for the “General Welfare.”

Righty: Leftist garbage! “General Welfare” is just shorthand to mean “all the stuff the Constitution already provides for specifically….” – you libs just don’t understand the Constitution – in fact I bet none of you have even read it!

Lefty: But if “General Welfare” was just supposed to be shorthand, why did they write it in there at all… Oh, never mind. How did you get there today?

Righty: I drove myself like I always do! I may be in this chair and I may not get around as fast as I used to but am still free to drive – at least until you libs take that freedom from me too!

Lefty: Where did you park?

Righty: In the handicapped spot – like I always do – right next to that hippie-mobile junker you drive!

Lefty: I think we should make handicapped parking spots voluntary.

Righty: Huh?

Lefty: Yes – or more accurately, we should make enforcement voluntary. We should keep the parking spaces there – but instead of saying “$250.00 fine” the sign should read “Please reserve these spaces for those who truly need them.” We might add “out of goodness and charity” but that would probably take up too much space.

Righty: But then there wouldn’t be any spaces for guys like us who really need them!

Lefty: Why not? You said yourself that volunteerism and charity would be sufficient. Do you mean to tell me that people who didn’t need the spaces – people who had no disability – would simply park there anyway?

Righty: Damned right they would – you know that!

Lefty: But this is a free country. Shouldn’t people have the right – the FREEDOM – to park anywhere they want?

Righty: But if people exercise the freedom to park anywhere they want then guys like me – guys like us – we lose our freedom because we can’t be assured of ever having a useable parking space….

Lefty: Besides, it’s unconstitutional…. The Constitution says nothing about providing parki….

Righty: Oh shut up! Where’s the food? Isn’t there supposed to be food here?

Lefty: Dunno…. after the budget cutbacks to the VA one of the local churches was supposed to start bringing the food… but that apparently hasn’t happened….

Wait…. It was only yesterday….. Blair House has become the new Reykjavik.  Health Care Reform is the new Nuclear Arms Reduction.  The Americans and the Soviets have been replaced by the Democrats and the Republicans, and Fox News is the new Pravda.

Do you remember Reykjavik?  It was almost 25 years ago – half a lifetime for me – yet I still retain vivid memories.  I remember how the talks broke down at the last minute…. how grim-faced Reagan and Gorbachev emerged without as much as a smile or a handshake for each other.  In fact, they wouldn’t even make eye contact.  I remember the sinking feeling that something really bad had occurred.   I remember how George Shultz proclaimed “I have never been so proud of my President….”

It is frightening, is it not, that relations between the Democrats and Republicans these days seem just as strained and bitter as those between the Americans and Soviets 25 years ago?   Oh – there were some smiles and handshakes after the summit yesterday – but this is starting to feel like the new cold war.  The days of bipartisanship and cooperation are gone.  There is no mutual respect.  Each side relishes the destruction of the other.

There is one major difference between Reykjavik and Blair House:  Reykjavik itself was a failure, but it was the beginning of something better.  The INF treaty – a true bilateral treaty –  was signed just over a year later.

I have no such confidence that Blair House will presage a bipartisan agreement on health care.  I have no expectation that we will see a reduction of hostilities between Republicans and Democrats.  I suspect we were never meant to see such changes.  Nobody expected progress anyway – before it even happened the press called it political theater and the Republicans called it a trap.  President Obama closed with the assessment that Republicans and Democrats would perhaps never be able to reach agreement.  I suspect he is right.  If Health Care Reform is to occur it will because Democrats do it unilaterally.

Perhaps the Republicans were right to call it a trap – because they were certainly trapped into showing that they had no real ideas.   Oh – they will claim that they have ideas – and Pravda-FOX will claim it on their behalf – but they conveniently forget to mention that 147 Republican amendments made it into the Senate Bill.  They have had significant input into the legislation – but still can’t manage to vote for it.  That, my friends, is the essence of political theater.

What was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell able to offer at the end of proceedings?  Just the tired mantra of “let’s start over.”  Don’t kid yourself.  “Let’s start over” means “lets not get it done at all.”  The insurance industry has the GOP in its pocket, and the insurance industry does not want to see this done – ever.  The insurance industry wants to continue with their near-monopolistic domination of the markets.  The insurance industry wants to continue their immoral practices – reducing the quality of care and stealing from their policy holders – all in the name of profit.  The insurance industry will continue to pour millions into a disinformation campaign aimed to frighten the public away from reforms that would in fact benefit the public greatly.  Pravda-FOX will continue in its role as a propaganda organ for the right-wing.

The Republicans want to scream about the cost.  I will tell you something about cost.  An estimated 45,000 people die each year because they are uninsured (here is the link for those who will inevitably doubt the estimate).  Countless more suffer needlessly.  That is a cost we cannot continue to endure.

Can I echo the worlds of George Shultz at the conclusion of Reykjavik?  Can I say  “I have never been so proud of my President….”?  No – not yet.  I am indeed pleased that my President is refusing to yield further on what is already a very moderate reform bill.  I will reserve true pride for my President – and for my party – for the day that a comprehensive reform bill is signed into law.

http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/02/06/teabag-racism-where-is-the-outrage/

and here:

http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/25/ralphie-and-aldo-and-stephen-and-barak/

and here:

http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/

and here:

http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/

You may think I am posting these links merely to increase traffic to my blog, and to expose more people to my obviously brilliant rhetorical skills.  Tempting as that might be, it is not my purpose.

Nor is it my purpose to  once again accuse elements of the right of being racist. No, my purpose is to point out a pattern in the comments to my posts.   If you click on the links above and read through the comments you will note that on every occasion someone makes the counter-accusation that Obama himself is a racist.   When I go to conservative blogs and point out incidents of what I see as racism I get the same response – a counter-accusation that Obama is the real racist.  It is as predictable as finding dog drool on Pavlov’s lab coat……

It is a ridiculous accusation.  Oh – I understand – it is indeed a great debate tactic.  If your side is on the defensive, deflect the criticism by turning the tables and accusing the other guy of the same thing.

I have done my best do address those accusations – but I have recently come to the conclusion that I have taken the wrong approach.  See, as an academic, I have taken an academic approach and I have made an academic argument.  I have argued that it is impossible for Obama to be a racist because in order to be a racist you must actually have power over the other racial group – and certainly blacks do not have such power in America.  You can see that argument in detail in the second link above.

I still stand by the power argument – but it is an academic argument – and indeed it is founded on the specific ways one defines specific terms.  It becomes difficult to defend an argument if people don’t even agree with your basic definitions.

So, my strategy was wrong.

Here is the better strategy.

What specific evidence do you have to support an accusation that Obama is racist?

“Ahhhhh, Rush said it!”

Sorry, doesn’t count as evidence.  I don’t care what Beck said either.  I don’t care what anyone in the conservative echo chamber said.  I want evidence – real evidence.

I have been asking this question for the last few weeks, on conservative blogs and elsewhere.  I have received a few responses.  As far as I can tell, Obama’s accusers cite two things as evidence.

First, some passages in Obama’s books are commonly cited.  One famous quote making the rounds on the internet is:

“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”

Seriously  – the comment to me seems pretty ambiguous as evidence of racism – to me it sounds more like a sincere reflection on the difficulty of growing up biracial….. but…..

OBAMA DIDN’T EVEN SAY IT!

That’s right.  These words are nowhere to be found in Obama’s books.  They are instead taken from an article, written by one of Obama’s critics, published in The American Conservative.

In fact, it turns that most of the supposedly racist statements Obama has made are either outright fabrications or quotes taken badly out of context.  Here is a nice summary:

OK – so Obama is a racist because other people have made up racist quotes and attributed them to him.

Is that all you got?

Of course that isn’t all you got…..  There is the oh-so-serious matter of Obama’s long association with the Reverend Wright.  Why – Obama sat in Wrights church for all those years while Wright spouted that hateful racist rhetoric!  Of course Obama must be a racist!

Get real…..

Even if we assume that the Reverend Wright is in fact a racist (and for the record I don’t think he is – but that is a different story for a different day) are we to believe that Obama is a racist simply because he attended Wright’s church?

“Guilt by Association” is one of the weakest rhetorical tools in the book, because there is absolutely no necessary relationship between a person’s attitudes and the attitudes of those with whom he or she associates.  Further, those who might levy this accusation seem to think that it is an easy thing to leave a church.  They seem to think that listening to the Pastor is the only reason to stay in a church.  They would be wrong.

Let me tell you a bit about myself.  I have been Catholic all my life – born and raised with 12 years of Catholic education. Over my lifetime the church has become increasingly conservative to the point that I share few of its views.  In recent years I have heard some very strange claims coming from the pulpit, or coming from the teachers at the parochial school.  I have heard two different pastors make the outrageous claim that abortion doctors are the moral equivalent of 911 terrorists. My daughter has been told by her religion teacher that homosexuals and axe murderers are the same in the eyes of God. My kids have heard that single woman get cancer as punishment for choosing career over making babies. I will of course be going to hell for the sin of using birth control.  If that isn’t enough to cause my eternal damnation, I voted for John Kerry too – and I was told that to do so was a sin as well.

I could go on and on and on – but you get the point.

Have I left the church?  No – I tolerate it.  My beliefs have not matched the teaching of the church for years – yet I still consider myself Catholic and I always will.  See – it isn’t an easy thing to leave a church.  It is a part of my upbringing and my culture.  I have friends at the church.  I have family in the church.  I have enjoyed community activities  like singing in the choir and going to the pancake breakfast and performing with my band at the annual carnival.  Until recently my kids went to school there.

To follow the logic of Obama’s accusers I certainly must adhere to all of the crazy beliefs and ideas I hear coming from the church because, after all, I have remained in the church all this time.  Let me assure you, I don’t believe those things.  In fact, I find many of the ideas abhorrent.   Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes.  I would suggest instead that I understand a bit more about the role a church plays as a centerpiece of a community.  It is about far more than the beliefs of its Pastor.

So let’s recap.  You say Obama is a racist.  As evidence you cite fabricated quotations, fortified by an extremely weak argument of guilt by association.

Seriously, is that all you got?

You got nothing….

I would like to pose a sincere question to my conservative friends – both RL and online.

Imagine the world about two years in the future…. say April or May of 2012.  The presidential primaries are all but over, and the parties have chosen their candidates.  The race to the general election in November is on.

Now, consider two possible scenarios:

Scenario A: Obama’s economic policies have caught steam over the last 24 months.  Unemployment is falling rapidly.  GDP is rising just as fast.  We seem to have turned the corner in Afghanistan and other foreign policy hotspots seem under control.  There has been no significant domestic terrorism.  Obama’s approval ratings are soaring, and his re-election is virtually certain.

Scenario B: Obama’s economic policies have been a dismal failure.  Unemployment is on the rise, as is inflation.  We are in the midst of a double-dip recession.  The war in Afghanistan is going poorly, the situation in Iran is becoming increasingly dangerous, and Iraq is becoming increasingly unstable.  There have been several near-miss domestic terrorism incidents.  Obama’s approval ratings are dismal and getting worse by the minute.  His reelection is extremely unlikely.

Which scenario would you choose?

(No – you do NOT get to create a different scenario – these are your only two options.  You also do not get to argue that one or the other scenario is impossible – these are obviously hypotheticals).

My conservative friends are certainly not stupid – they can certainly see the trap here – so let’s make sure the trap is clear.

Would you prefer the country to be in a good place, even if it means Obama’s reelection?

Or, would you prefer the country would be in a very bad place if it would mean Obama’s defeat?

My sense is that quite a few of my conservative friends would choose Scenario B.  Rush Limbaugh has said as much.  Eric Kantor has certainly suggested it as well.  There are others.

Obviously, if you choose Scenario B I am going to question how you could possibly consider yourself a patriotic American if you would put political power ahead of the good of your country.

Which do you choose?

It is an activity I do not recommend to anyone.  It involves far too much energy and far too much angst.  Why am I wasting so much time and emotional energy on her?  She isn’t really worth all of this, is she?

Just to be clear – this isn’t some kind of creepy crush.  I despise her.  I won’t go as far as to say I actually hate her – hate is strong word and I am not sure that I hate anybody at all.  But despise – yeah – that pretty much captures it.

Why do I have this reaction to her?  Why am I allowing her to make me miserable?

Oh – there are lots of reasons for me not to like her.

I think she is naïve yet smugly confident – a dangerous combination in a politician.  She is not particularly well educated and frankly she isn’t very bright either.   She would sell her soul for attention.  I applaud her advocacy for the developmentally disabled – but she and I are diametrically opposed on virtually every other policy issue.

Yes – there are many reasons for me to dislike Sarah Palin.  Still – none of the above can explain the depth of my emotional reaction to her.  There are plenty of right-wing politicians who share the above qualities with Palin – yet I don’t have the same emotional reaction.  Take Mike Huckabee.  He and Palin are very close on the issues – but I do not have the same reaction to him.  OK – he plays bass, which earns him a few points.  But otherwise, on the serious issues, I oppose his stances just as strongly as I oppose Palin’s.

Why does she elicit this reaction?

Don’t for a second suggest it is her gender.  I don’t have a similar reaction to Condoleezza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or any number of other right-wing women.

It finally became clear to me over this past weekend.

If you follow the news closely you already know that the “Tea Party” movement held a convention over the weekend.    Palin delivered the keynote address.

Perhaps I am a masochist – but for whatever reason I watched her speech.  As always, I found my anger growing and blood pressure rising.  Then she delivered the line…. AND I KNEW.

“How’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?”

Sigh…. Seeing the line on the computer screen just doesn’t capture it – so try to hear it in your head – delivered with that Marge-from-Fargo voice, dripping with sarcasm.  It is a cruel, mean spirited, mocking voice.

“How’s that hopey, changey thing workin’ out for ya?”

It isn’t your political views, Sarah.  It isn’t your IQ or your educational background.    It most certainly isn’t your gender.

It is the nasty, mean spirited, sarcastic way you mock the values of those who might differ from you.

Let me tell you something about that “hopey changey” thing.   I am sure you think “Hope and Change” it is just a campaign slogan – something to twisted and mocked to serve your purposes.  You would be wrong.

Hope and change is about inclusion.  It is about bringing the disenfranchised into the political process.  It is about believing – truly believing – that every American can become involved and take part and make a difference.  It is about taking those who have been cast aside and bringing them into the fold.

I know that threatens you Sarah.  I know you don’t think we are real Americans.  You have said as much.  Again,  you would be wrong.

An image.  It is election night.  A newly-elected President Obama is delivering his acceptance speech to thousands in a frigid Grant Park.  In the crowd stands Jesse Jackson – with tears pouring down his face.

That image moved me to tears.

That is what Hope and Change is all about, Sarah.  Mock it at your peril.

(see footnote)

Oh – there is plenty of outrage on the left – just check out the #p2 hashtag on Twitter.

I am looking for outrage from reasonable people on the right – even perhaps from a few teabaggers themselves. Surely they realize that their movement has gone too far…. too far toward hateful, overt racism?

Yes – the teabag movement has always had its racists. Take a look here for a montage of posters from the rallies last summer….. or here for another group of photos.

Somehow, the teabaggers just write all of this off. Just a few crazies, they say. Or, better yet – they claim “liberuls” like me are just being too sensitive. Calling Obama a “lyin’ African” or a “Half-Breed Muslin” isn’t racist at all. Hey – maybe they are right. I bet that last poster is just decrying Obama’s fabric choices. Even I prefer my muslin curtains to be purebred – they are so much whiter that way…..

So – yeah – teabaggers have always been associated with racists.

But now it has gone farther – a lot farther.

If you follow the news, you know that the teabaggers are holding a convention in Nashville right this very minute. You can catch it on CSPAN if you like. There are a whopping 600 of them attending – paying a substantial fee to attend this for-profit event. I am indeed curious why 600 people attending a for-profit event is worthy of the national news…. but I digress.

The opening speaker at the convention was one Tom Tancredo. You may have heard of Teabag Tom before. He is a former Representative to the US House, hailing from Colorado. He briefly threw his hat into the ring as a possible GOP presidential nominee. He is pretty much a one-trick pony – that being an anti-immigration pony. That would be the ugly angry drippingly sarcastic racist anti-immigration pony.

Here are some quotes from his convention-opening speech:

“people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.”

Tancredo goes on to propose a literacy test as a prerequisite to voting – to make sure that only the right people get to vote. After all – Obama apparently only won because – damn! – the wrong people were allowed to vote!

Maybe Teabag Tom needs a history and civics lesson of his own. Actually, I suspect he doesn’t – he knows what he is doing – but lets go there anyway. We have had literacy tests in this country before – in the Jim Crow south. Literacy tests were used to keep blacks from voting. Their use was restricted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of these acts – literacy tests used to restrict voting are unconstitutional.

So – Tancredo wants to reverse the Civil Rights Act, reverse the Voting Rights Act, reverse Supreme Court rulings, and take us back to the Jim Crow south.

And people claim – with a straight face – that this movement isn’t racist?

Don’t worry – there is more. Tancrdo goes on to blame ”the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”

Apparently there is only one correct culture in America and only one correct idea about America. To Tancredo and the teabaggers, that is a hateful white racist idea about America.

The teabaggers can no longer claim that the racists are just a few fringe crazies. Tancredo was invited by the organizers – to do no less than deliver the opening speech of the convention. The opening speech is a big event – it is meant to set the tone for the entire convention. Tancredo’s views were well known prior to the convention.

The teabaggers cannot hide it anymore. It is a deeply hateful, racist movement. They embrace racism.

Again – where is the outrage?

———-

Footnote: I am well aware of the sexual double entendre surrounding the term “Tea Bagger” – although I must admit that I am not hip enough and had to look it up the first time it was brought to my attention. Since that time I have avoided using the term, and have called them “tea partiers” instead. Until now. Avowed racists are not deserving of that measure of respect. If they are offended – good! I am offended by them.

Then, after making a post on October 1^st, I suddenly went silent.

Some people even noticed, and asked why.

I never made an active decision to stop writing – life simply intervened.  The last few months have seen a lot of stressful events in my family.  It started with my son hospitalized with H1N1, followed by the sudden and tragic death of a close family friend, followed 3 weeks later by the death of our 92-year-old family matriarch, and capped off with my 87-year-old Alzheimer’s patient mother breaking her femur and landing in the hospital.  It is perhaps understandable that my political ranting took a back seat.

(OK – a new Xbox under the Christmas tree provided some distraction as well.  Sheesh – I could probably lose my hippie card for admitting that.)

But – in all honesty – there is a lot more to the story….

I simply became burned out from the constant political roller-coaster.  Every time it looked like we were about to have a breakthrough in health care legislation, there was Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson or some other lowlife stepping in to crush the momentum.  Every time I dared to hope I ended up instead being frustrated and crushed. The Massachusetts election followed two days later by a devastating Supreme Court ruling was a nasty one-two punch to the gut.

I am tempted to throw up my hands and quit.  Perhaps I just don’t have the fortitude to withstand heated political debate.  I am a passionate guy and I care deeply about the issues – and it hurts to lose….

….but that would mean that the bad guys had won.

I have to get back up and get back into the fight.  Things are looking decidedly bad for Democrats and progressives.  I can’t walk away now.

So – it is back in the saddle.  The windmills have been getting downright bold – time to put them in their place.

Extensive blog posts will soon follow.  In the meantime, here are a few of my current thoughts.

– Scott Brown did not kill health care reform.  Joe “I have no ties to the insurance industry” Lieberman did.  Ben “pork belly” Nelson did.  There are others. This thing could have been done months ago – but instead they decided to drag their feet for personal gain.  Instead of doing their job, they decided to put personal power politics ahead of the public good.   Scott Brown is only relevant because they made him relevant.  Joe… Ben… people are going to die needlessly because of the game you played.  I hope your conscience is haunting you.

– Speaking of health care reform….. if Democrats had any guts it would NOT be dead.  My very first blog post (you can see it here) urged Democrats to have some guts and ram a progressive health care reform bill through – re-election be damned.  They can still do that and they should still do that.  Look – we are going to take a beating in 2010 midterms.  There probably isn’t much we can do about that now.  Instead of playing nicey-nicey and trying to save a lost election, use the time you have to get the job done.  You aren’t going to win the election anyway – so you might as well try to do the right thing on your way out.

– Ironically, the Massachusetts election provides an opportunity to have a better, more progressive health care bill than might have been imagined before.  All it would take is to have the House pass the Senate bill, and then to have the Senate add some progressive reforms via reconciliation.  But – that would take some guts.

– More irony:  In the era of right-wing “purity tests” the so-called savior of the Republican Party – Scott Brown – is decidedly to the left of any other GOP Senator.

– Scylla or Charybdis? Looks like we got both.

– Prediction:  The Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing will go down in history as being one of the worst of all time.  In the end it will prove devastating to our form of government.  Or maybe not – corporations will control how the history books are written so it won’t actually go down in history that way.  It will still be true, though.

– Conservatives are ecstatic about the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing.  I can understand why rich conservatives feel this way – the investing class will certainly do better.  Hell, I have a good job and I have investments so chances are that I personally will do better financially.  What I don’t understand is how rank-and-file conservatives – the ones who do not have much money – think this is good for them.  Sorry – but corporate America does not look after the little guy.  Giving more power to corporations will do little more than make the rich richer.

– The constitution gives me free speech – but does it give me the right to drown out the guy next to me by shouting louder and louder until he can’t be heard?  I don’t think so.

– My party is greatly underestimating the danger of Sarah Palin.   I cringe every time I hear someone say they hope Palin is the GOP nominee because she will be so easy to beat.  Don’t be so confident – Massachusetts was supposed to be safe too.  She is far too dangerous to be taking so lightly.

– A new poll shows that 63 percent of Republicans think Barak Obama is a Socialist.  Wow.  I would wager that fewer than 10 percent of those people could actually define what a Socialist is.

– Did you catch Tancredo’s remarks at the Teabagger convention today?  Not just in any old speech but in the opening speech – the speech intended to set the tone for the whole convention?  I quote:  “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.” He goes on to blame this on “”the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”  Wow.  Can anyone honestly deny that this is a hateful, racist group?

– 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…..

You know Ralphie – the pudgy bespectacled hero of A Christmas Story? The film routinely ranked as “favorite Christmas special?”

What is your favorite Ralphie scene? I have many – but near the top certainly has to be this one – the scene in which Ralphie has finally had enough and wails on the bully Scut Farkas.

Everyone just loves that scene – perhaps because most of us have been bullied and most of us can identify with Ralphie. It is fun to finally see the bully get what he has coming, isn’t it?

But – hey – look – what are we doing cheering Ralphie on? Isn’t Ralphie being a BULLY beating up on Scut?

Huh?

Of course Ralphie isn’t a bully. He is fighting back - and fighting back against a bully is OK.

Of course, A Christmas Story is all warm and fuzzy and sentimental – probably a bit too syrupy for some people. Maybe Quentin Tarantino is more your style?

Have you seen Inglorious Basterds yet? It is frankly quite a bit better than the trailer would suggest – and Christoph Waltz very much deserves an Oscar nod…. but I digress…

One of the film’s subplots is about an elite group of Jewish soldiers, dropped behind enemy lines in occupied France – with the sole purpose of terrorizing Germans. It is indeed a gruesome and bloody business – including scalpings, swastikas carved in the forehead, and t-ball played with Nazi heads. Yet – despite the violence everyone in the theater was cheering those Jewish boys on – wishing that the war really had gone that way.

Wait – but those Jewish soldiers were killing Germans because they were Germans – isn’t that racist?

Ahhh…..

No…. Of course not….. the Germans started the whole thing, and in fact were systematically attempting to exterminate the Jewish race. The Jewish soldiers were simply fighting back – brutally, yes – but fighting back. Fighting back is just fine. In fact – its is downright heroic.

A Christmas Story and Inglorious Basterds are, of course, works of the imagination. Both films certainly draw on some historical events – but in the end they are indeed fictional.

Lets look at someone real. How about Stephen Biko?

You remember Stephen Biko, don’t you? He has been dead for over 30 years, but certainly he should remain in our memories. He was a prominent black activist at the height of South African apartheid. The South African government called him an agitator and a terrorist. They eventually arrested him, and he died in captivity. Nobody outside South Africa seriously believed he was a terrorist. His goal was to simply empower black South Africans to fight for their rights. His people were oppressed by a brutal racist regime, and he sought to see black people break free from those bonds. He is credited with coining the term “black is beautiful”…..

Wait – what am I saying? His goal was to empower black people? He thought black was beautiful – as opposed to white? Damn! Biko must have been a RACIST!!!!

Yeah – right….

Biko was a black freedom fighter – fighting back against an oppressive racist regime. Fighting back against an oppressive racist regime is NOT racism. It is fighting back…. and fighting back is just fine. It is in fact honorable. Biko is rightfully called a martyr.

So now we turn to Barak Obama.

In case you have not noticed, Obama is often accused of being a racist these days. Glen Beck does it. Rush Limbaugh does it. Lou Dobbs does it. It is all over conservative talk radio and is rampant in the conservative blogsphere.

Obama is a racist? On what grounds is that accusation made?

As far as I can tell, it is because he says things and has done things to empower African Americans and other minorities. It is because his advisers and “czars” and cabinet appointees and supreme court nominees have done likewise – they have done things to empower oppressed minorities.

But wait! Isn’t that racism? Isn’t that showing preference to blacks over whites? Racism! Racism!

Give me a F’ing break.

Obama is not a racist. His advisers are not racist. His Supreme Court nominee is not racist. Even his former pastor is not racist.

They are merely fighting back against an historically racist and oppressive regime.

I can hear the shouts rising….

“America isn’t racist anymore!”

“Just get over it”

“It is not my fault my ancestors were racist!”

“The liberals are just playing the race card!”

Give me a F’ing break again.

Racism in America is alive and well. Sometimes it is overt – as seen in hateful signs at teabag parties…. (http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/13/calling-it-what-it-is/). Often it is covert – hidden – and even unconscious… (http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/)

Certainly we have made great strides in the last 50 years. I remember the pre-civil rights era. In the deep south it was not unlike South African apartheid. But racism will not be over until we live in a truly color-neutral society – where in Dr. King’s words we truly judge a man by the content of his character. We simply are not there yet.

White America (a demographic to which I belong, I will remind you) does not get to practice state-sanctioned racism for almost 200 years and then suddenly turn around and say “all done!” We certainly don’t get to claim it is all over until it is really is over – until all vestiges of racism are gone forever.

White America most certainly does not get to turn around and apply the racist label to those African Americans who seek equality and black empowerment – even when that means preferential treatment in the short term.

Ralphie wasn’t a bully – he was fighting back against a bully….

The Inglorious Basterds weren’t racists – they were fighting back against racists…..

Stephen Biko wasn’t a racist – he was fighting back against an oppressive racist regime…..

Neither Barak Obama nor his advisers are racists – they are fighting back against a long history of societal racism. Impressive strides against racism have indeed been made – but it ain’t over until its over. Until racism against African Americans is gone, then you really can’t call it racism to fight back.

I never really felt comfortable calling myself a “Hoosier” though.  I had particular disdain for the practice of using “Hoosier” as a contraction for “Who is your”  – and here I go using that device myself in the title of this post.

So – who is your tort reformer?

It might just be Indiana – at least when it comes to medical torts.

The battle for health care reform has certainly been loud and divisive.  There has been more shouting and protesting and marching than actual discussion.  There has been a lot of misdirection and misinformation.  Some of the issues raised are downright silly and would be funny if people didn’t actually believe them (fear of death panels and involuntary euthanasia, for example).

Some criticisms are decidedly not silly.  For example, conservatives consistently raise “tort reform” as an issue.  Why don’t liberals include tort reform as a part of the package?

My answer?  Yeah – why not?   You might be surprised that I support tort reform.  After all, aren’t liberals supposed to be against it?

I think this comes down to a “baby and the bathwater” issue – and most liberals err on the side of protecting the baby while most conservatives really want that bathwater gone.

Let’s concentrate for now on medical malpractice.  There are certainly other areas ripe for reform – but with the ongoing health care battle it seems particularly appropriate to look at medical malpractice suits.

Besides – I have something to write about medical torts.

There are plenty of very real cases of medical malpractice.  Physicians operate drunk and kill patients… nurses misadminister drugs… drug companies improperly label drugs resulting in accidental overdose….  Surgeons somehow manage to remove the wrong kidney…. Pharmacists and physicians fail to recognize fatal drug interactions.

In my opinion victims of such malpractice – and their families – should receive substantial compensation from the courts.  If tort reform means limiting awards to victims of serious abuse – well, then I guess I am against it.

But for every example of true malpractice there are many more “fluff” malpractice suits – groundless suits submitted by personal injury lawyers in the interest of nothing more than making a quick buck.  The “fluff” class-action suits are the absolute worst because the lawyers are the only ones to profit from those.  Our current system is nothing more than a subsidy for PI attorneys.  The fluff lawsuits must be eliminated.

Therein lies the Gordian knot.

How do we separate the true cases of malpractice from the fluff lawsuits?

Our jury system is not well equipped to handle this issue.  A “jury of your peers” will generally not include anyone with enough medical expertise to distinguish true malpractice from the fluff.  In fact, you could be certain that any physician in the jury pool would be challenged and dismissed.

How is a jury of non-experts to decide?  Both sides will have passionate lawyers – lawyers who know how to talk a good game.  Both sides will hire “expert” witnesses – who really aren’t experts at all.  No – expert witnesses are just whores who sell their souls to tell the jury what their side wants the jury to hear.

In the end it does not come down to the facts – it comes down to which side has the most convincing lawyers and experts.

This practice has to stop.  Unfortunately, the typical suggestion – a cap on damage awards – hurts the true victim as much as it does the non-victim.  The baby goes out with the bathwater.

Is there a way out of this bind?  A way to untie the knot?

A physician friend recently told me of a system in Indiana that just might offer a solution.

In Indiana, individuals wanting to claim malpractice first submit their case to a three-member panel of physicians.  That panel reviews the facts of the case and determines if malpractice may have occurred or not.  If the panel finds malpractice is unlikely the case ends right there.  If the panel finds malpractice may have occurred, the case can more forward to trial.

The system has a number of advantages.  PI lawyers are far less likely to file “fluff” suits because they will generally be unable to fool a panel of experts.  True victims of malpractice, on the other hand, stand to receive just compensation.    Physicians in Indiana will be able to concentrate on providing good health care instead of “defensive medicine” designed merely to avoid lawsuits.  Finally, malpractice insurance will be less expensive because fewer lawsuits will be filed and even fewer will go to trial.  In the end, medical costs go down – and that is a major goal of all reform efforts.

It certainly isn’t a perfect system.  I can see several possible concerns:

– The review process is apparently quite lengthy – it can add up to a year to the process.   Does this delay put an undue burden on the true victim?

– There is a worry among lawyers – perhaps a real worry – that the panel will always err on the side of the physician.

– There is always the worry of corruption.  There is lots of money floating around in the medical world, so the temptation to buy off the panel is certainly there.

I have had quite a bit of trouble finding additional information about this program.  It looks like an interesting solution, despite the problems.  I would be particularly be interested in hearing from people who know more about the system.  Do you think it works?  What are its problems?

Then comes the bigger question:  Should something similar be enacted nationally?  Should this system, or something similar, become a part of health care reform?

To me, it does look promising.