A Second Look Rotating Header Image

political blog

Republicans Hail “Anti-Liberalism”, Then Fail

Nov 29th, 2012
by Tom.
No comments yet

RE: Why Conservatives are Wrong When They Say Liberalism Will Fail

Anti-everything

Anti-everything

Liberalism saved Western civilization from  the tyranny of the church. Liberalism freed us from superstition and its sequelae (sic), like burning people who said “no” to the dominant power; and it gave us freedom and democracy and science, leading to a world where people were free to make their own decisions and to pursue individual happiness rather than a path bound on all sides by damnation, dictated for them by religious authorities.

Conservatives have never quite gotten over this rejection of the past and with it, of their ultimate, capital-T Truth. We have seen them convince themselves in recent years of liberalism’s essential illigitimacy (sic) as a political ideology, leaving liberalism’s success, let alone its continued existence, to confound them.

Throughout our history, Republicans have sweat blood trying to re-define liberalism in a disparaging way. They have placed “anti-liberalism” high on their agenda as a method of winning hearts and minds of enough of a voting block to win elections. Evidence of this comes as recent as the last two elections. The tea-party hysteria of 2009/10 which was all about, but not limited to, birthers, 9-11 thruthers, anti-science, and anti-tax (This is low hanging fruit for opposition parties since the time of Alexander the Great. It is an easy way to win points with the electorate without actually having a plan to govern.), anti-immigrant, and a plethora of anti-Obama talking points swept Republicans into office all across the US and the House of Representatives.

Along with this has been their very effective years-long campaign to paint the American media as liberal – as if liberal were a bad word. The result of this has been the total ineffectiveness of the media to mediate the discourse and remind us all of what is actually true.

While Republicans offer up theory after theory of why liberalism is going to be the death of us all, and at the same time they fail to offer up any viable alternative to the liberal view that appeals to anyone who is neither white, nor over 50, nor Christian, nor straight, nor xenophobic, nor misogynistic, nor racist. They are quick to tell you how liberals think, how foreigners think, and how God thinks. Claiming the corner on “what God wants” has got to be the most arrogant and presumptuous position in the annals of political history.

If you want solid empirical evidence of this “anti-liberalism” approach to governing, you have to look no further than recent issues and the current US Senate. The health insurance mandate was dreamed up by conservative economists in the 1980’s.

They wanted a market-based alternative to the liberal notion of universal health care which enjoyed popular opinion. Many Republicans supported the idea. But, they have since turned on it because Obama is for it. And that’s all. They offer up no other explanation except that it will kill jobs/ruin the economy/destroy America – all without any factual basis.

They want an economy without government interference based on a market that self-corrects. Here’s the truth: If the market could self-correct, it would have already done so. The crash of 2008 is a prime example. Without a rapid response from the government, we would all be in bread lines still, along with the former rich.

The current US Senate has obstructed every bill that the Democrats have introduced without offering any viable alternative or compromise. They have used the filibuster to deny cloture to more legislation than any in history. Since January of 2010, the Senate Republicans have blocked over 375 bills including the farm bill, jobs bill, and the food safety bill. They have not once moved to compromise with the Democrats because their definition of compromise is total capitulation.

Anti-liberalism has become their mantra. This is why they lost Presidential and Senate elections. During the campaign Romney offered nothing more substantial than “trust me”, “I have business experience” (torn apart by the Obama campaign), and “Obama is bad” – mostly the latter. Now they find themselves in the awkward position of having to find themselves. I think the election was a splash in the face for the right, a wake up call, to see the U.S. as it really is rather than looking through their “anti-liberalism” glasses. This could be a good thing for America.

Share

The United States of Danger

Jul 21st, 2012
by Tom.
No comments yet

Re: Chris Kelly: After a Massacre, Obama and Romney Suggest Nothing

Eighty-five years ago, on January 9, 1927, 78 children were killed in a movie theater in Montreal’s east end, at a Sunday matinee double feature of a western called The Devil’s Gulch and a comedy called Bring ‘Em Young. A fire, started by faulty wiring, started a stampede. The people of Quebec, and the Catholic Church, didn’t blame the faulty wiring. They blamed the movies. And no one under sixteen was allowed in a movie theater in the province for 40 years.

Early this morning, 71 people were shot — 12 died, one of them six-years-old — in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. They were killed, apparently, by a rifle and a handgun and the faulty wiring inside the head of an alleged gunman named James Holmes. And our response — America’s response — is going to be nothing.

Nothing. That’s what the NRA hopes we do about the massacre in Aurora. They hope that America’s 48 hour news cycle runs its course and then they hope that the whole incident in Aurora is forgotten. The NRA sits back and waits for Americans with short attention spans to go on to the next thing.

This is from Geoffrey R. Stone, Huffington Post

But, of course, why should the NRA have anything to say about this tragedy? As we all know, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This tells us something striking about Americans, by the way, because the average American is 40 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than the average Englishman or Canadian. According to the NRA, this has nothing to do with the fact that guns proliferate in America and are scarce in England and Canada. We just have to face the facts: Americans, unlike Englishmen and Canadians, are murderous by nature. The ready availability of assault weapons has nothing to do with it.

The gun lobby, NRA, gun manufacturers, and our lame-assed, money-grubbing politicians are to blame for this tragedy. We are going the wrong way on the gun issue. We need more control, not less, as the trend is now. No one will stand up to the gun lobby. The United States of Danger. That’s what we are, and no one is willing to do anything about it.

Share

Gingrich’s Plan to Cure Poverty and Grab Votes

Jan 18th, 2012
by Tom.
No comments yet

,,,,,

 

Newt Gingrich’s statements lately, such as “food stamp President” and “paychecks”, have nothing to do with solving problems but everything to do with striking the right cord with white bigoted southern voters. It is so obvious you can smell it.

He doesn’t give two hoots about poor children, (he says poor children, but means black children; it is just another dog-whistle.) but what he does care for is getting more votes.

In the article quoted here Lia Shapiro argues that Newt’s assertions are not based on any facts or research.

Are they ever? One way to keep the journalists off your back is to say things that they cannot easily refute.

Quoted from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/newt-gingrich-janitor-job-schools-children_n_1211762.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics:

Newt Gingrich Janitor Idea Won’t Solve Jobs Crisis 

During Monday night’s Republican debate in South Carolina, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich continued to promote his controversial strategy to child poverty and the jobs crisis: New York City janitors who make “an absurd amount of money” should be fired and replaced by poor schoolchildren, he said.

“You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor,” Gingrich said. “And those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket.”

The idea captures Gingrich’s spin on two popular right-wing economic claims: Union workers are overpaid and the poor simply need to work harder to improve their lives.

You can substitute “poor” for “black” anytime Newt says it.

Shapiro presents expert interviews with people who understand the plight of the poor in America.

Research does not substantiate Gingrich’s claim that these janitorial jobs would keep poor kids in school or improve their future.

“It’s really based on a misunderstanding of who poor kids are,” said Ange-Marie Hancock, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern California and author of “The Politics of Disgust and the Public Identity of the ‘Welfare Queen.’”

“It’s the idea that poor children are inherently flawed and need to learn certain things, as opposed to thinking about the system that fails to serve them,” Hancock said.

This whole thing with Gingrich is just another twist in the never-ending saga of the right wing’s “lets blame the victim” strategy of gaining a sympathetic ear, or vote, whatever the case may be. According to him it is the poor’s fault for being poor. Newt wants the southern bigots to think that he is not racist and he really cares about the plight of the poor.

Arguing the facts, as usuall, is useless. All he really cares about is votes. This is pure pandering.

Share
← Earlier Posts
You are protected by wp-dephorm: