(While writing this I had in the back of my mind a Philadelphia politician named James Tayoun who spent some time behind bars and then wrote a book of advice called So You're Going to Prison. I can't think of that title without cracking up. Anyway...)
You've heard a lot about the bagger scene and you'd like to give it a whirl. But not so fast! Here's a test to enable you to decide whether it's right for you.
There are three questions with three possible answers each.
********************************************************
QUESTION ONE: You come face to face with an Iraq war vet who has lived on the street for years, since the first Bush administration announced that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome. You say
(a) Step aside, you bum, and make way for a real patriot!
(b) My God! Why won't the richest country on earth take care of the people who fight its wars?
(c) There but for the grace of God go I.
*********************************************************
QUESTION TWO: An acquaintance tells you, "I don't know how my dad is going to pay his medical bills. He is facing a pretty bleak future." You say
(a) Let him die on the hospital steps. If there's one thing we don't need, it's more freeloaders!
(b) Isn't there a state program for people in his position?
(c) Wow! How can I help?
********************************************************
THIRD QUESTION: A corporation that defeated smoking restrictions in Texas offers you and your friends a luxury bus in which to go around to town hall meetings. (True story.) You say
(a) Where do I sign up?
(b) You mean you're not only against healthcare but against health?
(c) Get away from me, you sociopathic scum!
********************************************************
Well, there you have it. How did you do? Any hard choices? I sure hope not.
If you chose (a) every time, pat yourself on the back and go brew up a cup of that splendid patriotic beverage!
But if you chose another answer to any of the questions, know that people like you will be dealt with after the revolution.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
NEWT, MEET THE TEABAGGERS
The teabag phenomenon is a contagion, not a movement. A movement, after all, involves collective action, while the teabaggers are against collective anything.
Their views are shared not through propaganda but by osmosis. And what wonders me is that such unmitigated individualists should think so much alike!
Of course, there are differences in the ranks. Some haven't thought it through all the way. Some would draw the line somewhere. I'm interested in the purest/most extreme of the lot. The rest are just traitors waiting to defect.
The true baggers represent themselves as being in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party, whence comes their tea connection. But the Boston guys were against taxation without representation, while the teabaggers are against both taxation and representation.
How can anyone represent a person who is wholly individual and acknowledges the reality of no community? And representation refers to government, which they hate and consider illegitimate.
The teabag thing is about atomization. They don't quite say that openly. But it's there.
And it is revealing how far the right-wing landscape has changed in a few years. It used to be that nobody was in better standing as an all-out rightist than Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House. But now Newt has lost his ear for the music. He keeps blundering egregiously.
Half the time he sounds like a very smart and alert fellow. The other half he sounds like an angry bigot. That has always been the case with him. What he has never sounded like, however, is a teabagger.
He backed Ginny Scozzafava in the New York 23 Congressional race over teabagger Doug Hoffman, a terrible career move. And just recently he advocated Republicans and Democrats working together. He might as well have praised the Communist party!
The ironic thing is that Newt embodies the perfect narrative for appealing to the baggers. This is a man who actually shut down the government of the United States under Bill Clinton. He ought to be a great hero on the bag scene, maybe the greatest: surely greater than Sarah Palin, whose only baggist virtue is that she quit as a governor.
If he wants the GOP presidential nomination - and he does - then Newt had better channel his inner teabag and start hinting that he looks favorably on the abolition of the Federal government. Same goes for former senator Rick Santorum, who recently endorsed a rather centrist candidate for Pennsylvania's Republican gubernatorial nomination over a way-out-there-in-right-field one.
When reactionaries like these are suddenly seen as too moderate, it ain't your old man's GOP anymore.
Their views are shared not through propaganda but by osmosis. And what wonders me is that such unmitigated individualists should think so much alike!
Of course, there are differences in the ranks. Some haven't thought it through all the way. Some would draw the line somewhere. I'm interested in the purest/most extreme of the lot. The rest are just traitors waiting to defect.
The true baggers represent themselves as being in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party, whence comes their tea connection. But the Boston guys were against taxation without representation, while the teabaggers are against both taxation and representation.
How can anyone represent a person who is wholly individual and acknowledges the reality of no community? And representation refers to government, which they hate and consider illegitimate.
The teabag thing is about atomization. They don't quite say that openly. But it's there.
And it is revealing how far the right-wing landscape has changed in a few years. It used to be that nobody was in better standing as an all-out rightist than Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House. But now Newt has lost his ear for the music. He keeps blundering egregiously.
Half the time he sounds like a very smart and alert fellow. The other half he sounds like an angry bigot. That has always been the case with him. What he has never sounded like, however, is a teabagger.
He backed Ginny Scozzafava in the New York 23 Congressional race over teabagger Doug Hoffman, a terrible career move. And just recently he advocated Republicans and Democrats working together. He might as well have praised the Communist party!
The ironic thing is that Newt embodies the perfect narrative for appealing to the baggers. This is a man who actually shut down the government of the United States under Bill Clinton. He ought to be a great hero on the bag scene, maybe the greatest: surely greater than Sarah Palin, whose only baggist virtue is that she quit as a governor.
If he wants the GOP presidential nomination - and he does - then Newt had better channel his inner teabag and start hinting that he looks favorably on the abolition of the Federal government. Same goes for former senator Rick Santorum, who recently endorsed a rather centrist candidate for Pennsylvania's Republican gubernatorial nomination over a way-out-there-in-right-field one.
When reactionaries like these are suddenly seen as too moderate, it ain't your old man's GOP anymore.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
JOKE THE "PLUMBER"
Samuel Wurzelbacher, famously and mistakenly called "Joe the Plumber," is my candidate for Mr. Empty Teabag of 2010. He keeps turning up and keeps being treated as a hero for no reason.
John McCain tried to represent this $40,000-a-year plumbing supply business employee as an everyman we should all be able to identify with. What he really is is the quintessential teabagger.
In '08 Wurzelbacher heard Obama's plan for small businesses and pronounced it "socialist." The wildly inaccurate and emotion-driven use of "socialist" is a prime characteristic of teabaggers.
His humorlessness is also pure teabag. He is unable to get matters in perspective.
His self-pity is a third kind of bagger output. To hear him you would think he was being sent off to a gulag, when in fact no one has proposed doing anything to him.
Recently the pseudo-plumber complained that McCain "tried to use" him during the campaign. Well, duh! But how did that hurt Wurzelbacher? It turned him into a national figure, opening the way for his career as a "motivational speaker" and assuring that whatever he says on political issues, however inane, will get into the news. If he doesn't want to be a public figure, all he has to do is shut up. So here is a fourth teabag trait: the vehement but wholly empty complaint.
Similarly the teabaggers moan that they are losing their freedom. Exactly what freedom have they ever lost? And what freedom would Obama's plans cost them? The administration has said they can keep their present corporate-provided healthcare. So how are they fated to lose out?
The teabaggers are of two sorts. Some are rich. The rest identify with the rich. Wurzelbacher is of the latter sort. He wanted to have his own plumbing business and get rich; once he did so, he didn't want to pay taxes at a higher rate. He cried before he was hit. I also suspect he cried when he will never be in a position to get hit.
God help us if this whining loser represents the spirit of the American people!
John McCain tried to represent this $40,000-a-year plumbing supply business employee as an everyman we should all be able to identify with. What he really is is the quintessential teabagger.
In '08 Wurzelbacher heard Obama's plan for small businesses and pronounced it "socialist." The wildly inaccurate and emotion-driven use of "socialist" is a prime characteristic of teabaggers.
His humorlessness is also pure teabag. He is unable to get matters in perspective.
His self-pity is a third kind of bagger output. To hear him you would think he was being sent off to a gulag, when in fact no one has proposed doing anything to him.
Recently the pseudo-plumber complained that McCain "tried to use" him during the campaign. Well, duh! But how did that hurt Wurzelbacher? It turned him into a national figure, opening the way for his career as a "motivational speaker" and assuring that whatever he says on political issues, however inane, will get into the news. If he doesn't want to be a public figure, all he has to do is shut up. So here is a fourth teabag trait: the vehement but wholly empty complaint.
Similarly the teabaggers moan that they are losing their freedom. Exactly what freedom have they ever lost? And what freedom would Obama's plans cost them? The administration has said they can keep their present corporate-provided healthcare. So how are they fated to lose out?
The teabaggers are of two sorts. Some are rich. The rest identify with the rich. Wurzelbacher is of the latter sort. He wanted to have his own plumbing business and get rich; once he did so, he didn't want to pay taxes at a higher rate. He cried before he was hit. I also suspect he cried when he will never be in a position to get hit.
God help us if this whining loser represents the spirit of the American people!
THE STATE OF CONSERVATISM
My main point is not just that conservatives do bad stuff, but that conservatism itself is inherently immoral. Nevertheless, how it stands with American conservatism today is of interest. So here is a summary.
All gall is divided into three parts. The Republican party, long since captured by the rawest conservatism, is today in danger of a three-way split among:
(1) The party's usual office-holders, whose aim is to
>strengthen the prerogatives of local power structures and giant corporations by reducing the prerogatives of everyday people
>promote wars, because that is good for business
>cut taxes for the rich
>gut environmental and business regulations, which interfere with profits and reduce the discretion of business leaders.
>crack down on dissent and identify doing that with patriotism.
This portion of the GOP would like a "big tent" in which Republicans of every stripe support one another. But today that idea appears quaint.
(2) The Religious Right, whose aim is to
>cram their religion down our throats using our own schoolhouses and courthouses
>make life hell for gays, liberals, and women who want abortions
>identify patriotism with theocracy
>reward the rich for being rich and punish the poor for being poor
>do the same things the party office-holders want to do.
(3) The teabaggers, whose aim is to
>abolish government, except when it is doing things expressly for them
>drive everyone who is not also an anarchist out of the Republican party
>weaken the Republican party because it is a political party and therefore is for government
>maximize suspicion and paranoia in the country
>redefine patriotism to mean the advocacy of what they are doing.
It should be clear that no single entity can embody all three of these agendas. So something has to give.
There are also conservatives of a more libertarian sort, in the Barry Goldwater mold. But the libertarians have their own party and have little chance of taking over the Republican one.
A few weeks ago Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) complained that the Religious Right to which he belongs is being challenged by what he termed the Far Right, which is the teabaggers. On healthcare, he quoted one as telling him that they want "freeloaders" (anyone without health insurance or wealth) to die on the hospital steps. Inglis does not go along with that, which only shows that there are traitors to the true conservative cause everywhere!
I will have more to say on the teabaggers in the postings just ahead.
All gall is divided into three parts. The Republican party, long since captured by the rawest conservatism, is today in danger of a three-way split among:
(1) The party's usual office-holders, whose aim is to
>strengthen the prerogatives of local power structures and giant corporations by reducing the prerogatives of everyday people
>promote wars, because that is good for business
>cut taxes for the rich
>gut environmental and business regulations, which interfere with profits and reduce the discretion of business leaders.
>crack down on dissent and identify doing that with patriotism.
This portion of the GOP would like a "big tent" in which Republicans of every stripe support one another. But today that idea appears quaint.
(2) The Religious Right, whose aim is to
>cram their religion down our throats using our own schoolhouses and courthouses
>make life hell for gays, liberals, and women who want abortions
>identify patriotism with theocracy
>reward the rich for being rich and punish the poor for being poor
>do the same things the party office-holders want to do.
(3) The teabaggers, whose aim is to
>abolish government, except when it is doing things expressly for them
>drive everyone who is not also an anarchist out of the Republican party
>weaken the Republican party because it is a political party and therefore is for government
>maximize suspicion and paranoia in the country
>redefine patriotism to mean the advocacy of what they are doing.
It should be clear that no single entity can embody all three of these agendas. So something has to give.
There are also conservatives of a more libertarian sort, in the Barry Goldwater mold. But the libertarians have their own party and have little chance of taking over the Republican one.
A few weeks ago Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) complained that the Religious Right to which he belongs is being challenged by what he termed the Far Right, which is the teabaggers. On healthcare, he quoted one as telling him that they want "freeloaders" (anyone without health insurance or wealth) to die on the hospital steps. Inglis does not go along with that, which only shows that there are traitors to the true conservative cause everywhere!
I will have more to say on the teabaggers in the postings just ahead.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
ABOUT BIG GOVERNMENT
If there is one thing conservatives demand it is small government.
All of us want limited government. The alternative is Stalinism. But small government is another matter. A government can be sizeable but still operate with built-in restraints.
Government should be keeping you safe from the activities of other citizens but also from its own overreaching. We have a separation of powers to make sure that the latter happens.
There cannot be small government in a huge, complex society where big business and big labor have great economic power and where many are looking out only for themselves.
You aren't dying from the food you eat. Why? Because government is big enough to monitor the food industry.
You aren't dying from air and water contamination. Why? Because government is big enough to deal with polluters.
One thing you can be dead certain of: Everyone who wants to eat your lunch is clamoring for a government too little and puny and underfunded to keep them from doing it.
If you end up treading water because climate change has elevated the ocean levels, the reason may be that cynical lobbyists and manipulative radio talkers succeeded in restricting what the government could do about it, arguing with ideology against science all the while.
When the Republicans get into office they go for de-regulation of everything, meaning no restraints on business. And when they appoint members of Federal regulatory agencies, too often those members represent not the public interest but the interest of the businesses they are supposed to be regulating. The present economic mess was permitted to come about by regulators who wouldn't regulate.
We hear about Jefferson. But if Jefferson were here today he wouldn't be a Jeffersonian. He guessed wrong about where conditions were headed, but he wasn't for anarchy or for a society dominated by corporate interests.
Meanwhile, conservatism trades on the confusion of big government with unlimited government. Don't be fooled.
All of us want limited government. The alternative is Stalinism. But small government is another matter. A government can be sizeable but still operate with built-in restraints.
Government should be keeping you safe from the activities of other citizens but also from its own overreaching. We have a separation of powers to make sure that the latter happens.
There cannot be small government in a huge, complex society where big business and big labor have great economic power and where many are looking out only for themselves.
You aren't dying from the food you eat. Why? Because government is big enough to monitor the food industry.
You aren't dying from air and water contamination. Why? Because government is big enough to deal with polluters.
One thing you can be dead certain of: Everyone who wants to eat your lunch is clamoring for a government too little and puny and underfunded to keep them from doing it.
If you end up treading water because climate change has elevated the ocean levels, the reason may be that cynical lobbyists and manipulative radio talkers succeeded in restricting what the government could do about it, arguing with ideology against science all the while.
When the Republicans get into office they go for de-regulation of everything, meaning no restraints on business. And when they appoint members of Federal regulatory agencies, too often those members represent not the public interest but the interest of the businesses they are supposed to be regulating. The present economic mess was permitted to come about by regulators who wouldn't regulate.
We hear about Jefferson. But if Jefferson were here today he wouldn't be a Jeffersonian. He guessed wrong about where conditions were headed, but he wasn't for anarchy or for a society dominated by corporate interests.
Meanwhile, conservatism trades on the confusion of big government with unlimited government. Don't be fooled.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
TO HELL WITH CONSERVATISM
Hello, world.
This is what you get because I have been drinking coffee.
I am doing this partly to see how well my ideas hold up when written down and whether they should be modified. I may spawn qualified or even contrary thoughts as I proceed, and if I do I will present 'em. I am also educable, one of my vices; so I would be glad to hear from you. I hope what I am saying will at least occasion some soul-searching.
The reason for the title is the wave of adulation for conservatism, or for "conservative principles," that we read about all the time. I think that had better be countered. Liberals seem afraid to do so. I am more a radical than a liberal and I like to go to basics.
What is socio-political conservatism? What do all the movements and institutions properly so labeled have in common? My answer is that conservatism comes down to advocacy of privilege. It is the way selfish groups with power protect their unaccountable positions and justify their predation. Conservatives were originally the aristocracy and the slave-owners, then the robber barons and their minions, then the nouveau riche who didn't want their incomes taxed or their businesses regulated to protect the public. If I have everything and you have next to nothing and I want to not only keep it that way but press my advantage over you, what do you suppose I am going to call myself?
There are many who consider themselves conservatives but are not piggish. I think they should unconfuse themselves. What they are after is not a conservative social order.
I do not wish, by the way, to excuse the contemporary political scene, which is a melange of liberal and conservative arrangments. The status quo is not acceptable to me. "More for everybody" is not going to cut it.
Conservatism tends to feudalism. But the original feudalism had a fixed place and guarantees for every class of people. The new feudalism is a game of each against all, rigged in favor of those who start out holding most of the cards.
The American political left is defined by its stance for equality before the law (as in civil rights legislation), for equality in security of person (as in Social Security), and for equality of opportunity (as in giving those who are knocked down a governmental hand up as opposed to abandoning them to private discretionary charity).
The political right is defined by a belief in inequality, in stratification, and in concentrating wealth and social decision-making in relatively few hands. Its members are implicitly or explicitly cynical about the worth and the rights of most people, as turns up in their conversations.
Populist, teabagger conservatives talk as though it were otherwise, but a little scrutiny belies that. They are the ones who already have it made. "Hands Off My Health Care" means, "I've got mine. Screw you." Riding around in corporate buses to disrupt town hall meetings lets right-wing anarchy trump reason and democracy. Their idea of social justice is that if you lose everything because of the right-wing economic arrangements that are enriching them, their money should not be used to keep you going.
If you think my definition is off, all you have to do is provide me with an example of a group generally acknowledged to be conservative that opposes what is to the special benefit of its own class or race: not, mind you, when that special benefit is used to even things up but only when its purpose is to keep them from being evened up.
That will be enough for one day. I hope you will come back.
This is what you get because I have been drinking coffee.
I am doing this partly to see how well my ideas hold up when written down and whether they should be modified. I may spawn qualified or even contrary thoughts as I proceed, and if I do I will present 'em. I am also educable, one of my vices; so I would be glad to hear from you. I hope what I am saying will at least occasion some soul-searching.
The reason for the title is the wave of adulation for conservatism, or for "conservative principles," that we read about all the time. I think that had better be countered. Liberals seem afraid to do so. I am more a radical than a liberal and I like to go to basics.
What is socio-political conservatism? What do all the movements and institutions properly so labeled have in common? My answer is that conservatism comes down to advocacy of privilege. It is the way selfish groups with power protect their unaccountable positions and justify their predation. Conservatives were originally the aristocracy and the slave-owners, then the robber barons and their minions, then the nouveau riche who didn't want their incomes taxed or their businesses regulated to protect the public. If I have everything and you have next to nothing and I want to not only keep it that way but press my advantage over you, what do you suppose I am going to call myself?
There are many who consider themselves conservatives but are not piggish. I think they should unconfuse themselves. What they are after is not a conservative social order.
I do not wish, by the way, to excuse the contemporary political scene, which is a melange of liberal and conservative arrangments. The status quo is not acceptable to me. "More for everybody" is not going to cut it.
Conservatism tends to feudalism. But the original feudalism had a fixed place and guarantees for every class of people. The new feudalism is a game of each against all, rigged in favor of those who start out holding most of the cards.
The American political left is defined by its stance for equality before the law (as in civil rights legislation), for equality in security of person (as in Social Security), and for equality of opportunity (as in giving those who are knocked down a governmental hand up as opposed to abandoning them to private discretionary charity).
The political right is defined by a belief in inequality, in stratification, and in concentrating wealth and social decision-making in relatively few hands. Its members are implicitly or explicitly cynical about the worth and the rights of most people, as turns up in their conversations.
Populist, teabagger conservatives talk as though it were otherwise, but a little scrutiny belies that. They are the ones who already have it made. "Hands Off My Health Care" means, "I've got mine. Screw you." Riding around in corporate buses to disrupt town hall meetings lets right-wing anarchy trump reason and democracy. Their idea of social justice is that if you lose everything because of the right-wing economic arrangements that are enriching them, their money should not be used to keep you going.
If you think my definition is off, all you have to do is provide me with an example of a group generally acknowledged to be conservative that opposes what is to the special benefit of its own class or race: not, mind you, when that special benefit is used to even things up but only when its purpose is to keep them from being evened up.
That will be enough for one day. I hope you will come back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)