A Disturbance in the Force?
I may be imagining it—it’s awfully early and I’m under-caffeinated—but I think there’s been a slight change in the force.
More precisely, a particularly virulent and lame version of conservative argumentation seems to be falling flat and is far less effective that it was even a few months ago.The strain of argument I refer to is the one sentence, gut-grabbing, bumper-sticker condemnation of opposing ideas. This is Bush equating a time-table for ending the Iraq war with “a plan for failure.” This is big Pharma operatives and the pols on their payrolls describing health care reform as “socialized medicine.” This is the no-tax-increases-ever crowd arguing that taxing hedge fund managers at the same rate as everybody else will “kill venture capital as we know it.”
In each case, these conceptual body blows are not landing with their old force. On the war, the Bush/Cheney rhetoric hardly seems to resonate anywhere. Members of their own party no longer seem to buy it. Needless to say, this doesn’t automatically translate into better policy on the war, but it does open the door for bi-partisan discussions that were formerly off limits.
Though it’s too early to tell for sure, simplistic attacks on what might be called progressive health care plans—plans that to one degree or another take the provision of health care out of the market—have also been ineffective. Because such plans typically mandate coverage, enforce large risk pools, subsidize care for those without means, regulate insurers, and implement cost controls, vested interests are coalescing around the counterattack that such plans are “socialized medicine” run by “big government.”
But I predict that this new “Harry and Louise”—they were the couple advertisers used to kill the Clinton health-care plan—will stumble. For one, the employer-based system, the one through which most working age families are insured, is slowly unraveling, and generating a level of insecurity that insulates the new plans from dismissive attacks. Second, big time Republicans, like Schwarzenegger and Romney, have recognized the difficulties sustaining the current system and proposed such plans of their own. Third, progressive advocates, from Michael Moore to scholarly wonks like Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Dean Baker, Maggie Mahar, and lots of others, seem to be successfully breaking through with stark comparisons between our system and those of every other advanced economy, wherein they spend a lot less per capita but have better health care outcomes.
Also, some of the most clever plans, like this one crafted by Jacob Hacker, overtly inject market competition into their framework. Under Hacker’s plan—and many others share this “pay or play” characteristic—employers have to provide coverage, but they can do so through the private market, or they can sign onto a Medicare-like government program. If progressive advocates are right, and government plans are far more efficient than those of the private sector, this approach ultimately reduces to single payer, as private plans are too burdened by overhead, profits, and inability to control costs. If not, well…good old market competition: let the best plan win. That doesn’t sound too socialized.
I myself have been engaged in the debate to raise taxes on those managing hedge funds, i.e., to tax their compensation as normal income (at 35%), not capital gains (15%). No one can say where this is headed—there are hearings on the issue today, and some very well-heeled lobbyists are out in force to kill the idea—but, like the other two examples above, the push for the change has been at least somewhat bi-partisan. Republican Charles Grassley, not a guy you associate with tax increases, is a co-sponsor of the legislation. And when the punditry get together to flap their gums on this idea, the notion that super-rich hedge fund managers face lower tax rates than teachers and firefighters has trumped the usual “raise our taxes and you’ll deal a fatal blow to capitalism.”
It helps when you’ve got big shots like Warren Buffet making this very point about tax unfairness (he’s been going around pointing out that he faces a lower rate than his secretary). Same with Bob Rubin, a Democrat, yes, but also a guy with some serious capital market street cred. This very morning I debated this tax change on a CNBC segment hyperbolically entitled “War on the Wealthy” and let me tell you, the opposition’s heart wasn’t in it.
Perhaps the swift boats are idling in the harbor, waiting to come out en masse and sink these good ideas. But I doubt it. You truly can’t fool all the people all the time, and the stakes are glaringly high, especially on the war. The failure of conservative ideology to tackle the challenges we face has become too deep to ignore or dismiss with clever one-liners and this gives progressives an opening to offer viable alternatives.
Let’s not blow it.
I hope you're right. I think you're right. My trouble is that I can't quite distinguish between my own hoping and thinking, and I know it is dangerous to confuse the two. I think I'll try to hope, because hoping means that I have a lot of work to do. Thinking you're right might lead me to relax too much.
One of the thoughtful/hopeful signs is the number of major corporations which see a national system as leveling the playing field between themselves and competitors in countries which do have national health systems, raising the cost on cars and the like produced here by lots of bucks per unit. It's also early for me and I'm only semi-caffeinated so my Google skills aren't awake. I bet you could maybe find a report at the office someplace <hint></hint> which looks at the companies which are swinging to endorse some version of a National Health System. Once the big guys recognize that what is in the interest of one isn't necessarily in the interest of the others, we may see some interesting realignments in the alternate universe in which the corporations live.
aMike
July 11, 2007 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible that on a few fronts, at least, it's the Republicans themselves who are changing.
Bush losing Richard Lugar on Iraq is one sign.
Boardroom Republicans who realize that their companies would be far more profitable if the government took over health care is another.
That anyone who tries to defend hedge fund managers from taxation is going to have to, at some point, admit that they're defending a small group of audacious yacht-owners from Greenwich, CT. will mean that the hedge funders are on their own. Nothing against hedge fund managers but they're not exactly a sympathetic lot. One thing -- this will never change under George W. Bush. George's brother Martin is... a hedge fund manager.
That's not to say that we're going to get a new era of bipartisanship. Even if we did, I don't think that'd be a good thing.
But, on at least a few points some Republicans are realizing that the policies they've been supporting aren't in their best interests. We can use that to sway them on a few points, or just to count on less than enthusiastic responses on others.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 11, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jared
You were excellent on CNBC today but I am not sure about your take on the opposition. Perhaps it is just CNBC itself who has copy the referers to today's hearings in Washington as a "war on the wealthy." They have an on going theme of 'government run while" and of course the always popular "class warfare."
Why you are such a good opponent to this nonsense is not just your clarity but you do not respond with slogans but with facts. Part of the problem for the liberals is that too often leftwing ideology is substituted for liberal thinking and facts. Liberals need to pound over and over that while government can't solve everyones problems it cannot not make poverty go away it can help allow people have better less anxiety ridden lives as the modern era of new technology is ever more deployed.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 11, 2007 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Daniel--and what are doing watching CNBC at 6:30A!?
I'm not at all sure I'm right either, btw. Probably some wishful thinking, but let us not discount the extent of Bush fatigue.
That in and of itself doesn't win the day--you usually can't win with a "we're not them" platform, so I'm encouraged by the developments I cite.
July 11, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
rove's most important tool has been the uncontested repetition possible with the talk radio monopoly- to catapult the propaganda.
that advantage is being eroded slowly but liberals are still way behind. they're playing without a front line and have been for twenty years-since the fairness doctrine was killed.
until the right wing talk radio monopoly with it's ability to control the framing is limited liberals won't be able to frame an outhouse.
July 11, 2007 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right aMike, and should have been listed as another reason why the playing field may be different this time around. It's also an interesting way in which globalization/international competition is boosting the viability of a progressive alternative.
July 11, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The right pounced on the suspected bombers in Britain being doctors in the National Health system. It was nothing more than an attempt to Swift-Boat any discussion of single-payer health insurance in the US, which is expected to be part of the Democrats' platform next year.
July 11, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, glance at Limbaugh's website, Ego Inflated Broadcaster, (I can't listen to his radio show- bad for my blood pressure), he claims to be running the country. Dittoheads say that he makes them feel safe.
July 11, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wingnut talk radio dominance is no excuse for defeat. Afterall we have a corner on a much bigger proportion of the blog audience and that - unlike radio and tv - is all merit based.
There ought to be a way to tie the other Republican failures to govern to the fiasco in Iraq. If you look at it, the plans for lazzez faire, flat tax government there, the states' rights constitution encouraged if not outright forced on Iraqis, wasteful privatization and cronyism, the list goes on forever, these are all programs conservatives have or would love to foist on the US. Just look at the Katrina mess. The same bloodsucking contractors responsible for the reconstruction failures in Iraq are working on the Gulf Coast today.
July 11, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Countries change majority parties after they have suffered a dislocation or defeat. So losing the Iraq war will cause a change just as losing Vietnam did.
The problem is that the same forces that have pushed the US towards industrial consolidation and militarism are still at work. We may see some domestic policies like health care become more equitable, but there is no sign that either party is willing to come to grips with the real issues of the day.
The most important of these, of course, is overpopulation and its knock on effects of resource shortages, regional conflict and climate change. Both parties are still talking about how best to achieve growth as the solution to our problems.
The right promotes growth as a way to promise a better tomorrow for the underclasses while not having to yield any of the privilege. And if tomorrow never quite arrives, then there is still always hope...
The left promotes growth because they are unwilling to acknowledge that technology can't solve all problems and they are afraid to ask for sacrifice for fear of losing votes. Just today a watered down carbon trading scheme was put forth. Several prominent Dems have also resisted simple improvements in CAFE standards because of local issues.
This is not the sign of bold, innovative leadership, but of pandering to the powerful and supporting the status quo with the least amount of change. Unfortunately mother nature does not accept campaign contributions from the oil lobby.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 11, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bernstein,
I fear that it is just the fatigue that comes from an over-used adrenalin gland. We have collectively had it squeezed one too many times by the Bushbots and their media shills. Either the gland is empty, or we have become too used to the drug for it to be effective at jolting the "nervous" (pun intended) system.
Or...
The individual industry areas that you cite have finally realized that as the Bush administration descends to complete irrelevance under the guidance of Grover Norquist, they must now fend for themselves lest they be "thrown under the bus" to stave off the complete collapse of the conservative house of cards. They have enjoyed a long shake of the money tree, but that's old news now- the only thing that matters to them is next quarter's earnings.
Or...
Norquist has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in supplanting faith in any organized governmental or social system with a level of mistrust and cynicism formerly reserved to the most despotic. This is the one that really scares me. Without some level of faith in the ability of government to be trusted, there will be no political will in the populace to embolden the reform, even if all agree the idea and implementation are sound. One only has to look as far as the Senate to see the level of cowardice towards the change process even with 70% of the population behind ending the war. What chance do the complicated issues have in that environment?
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
July 11, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the echo chamber discipline IS breaking down. Iraq, immigration, and general unpopularity have made Bush a liability and people have realized that they can break with the WH without consequences. Talk radio hosts and politicians are now free to follow their own script.
Without a conductor the noise machine is much less effective. Hopefully, it will be very hard to put the pieces back together again.
Blogosphere pressure on the MSM is having an effect, too. Despite the obvious lapses, they are doing less reflexive parroting and legitimization. They've had some success with smearing Dem candidates, but even that has decreased from the frenzy of even six months ago.
I wouldn't count insurers out. The "Gov't heathcare = terrorism" is merely the first shot. They have a lot of money at risk.
Pharma seems to be divided -- they are supporting expanding insurance for children even though it is a solid step toward national healthcare.
-- Tentakles
July 11, 2007 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This health care reform/terror connection is a case in point. It's crazy, desperate stuff that may have worked at some point but--my prediction, and I may be wrong--is less likely to do so now.
At some point, such arguments sound foolish not just to those of us who see them coming, but to a critical majority.
July 11, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
One indication of the depths of the health care crisis that was uncharacteristically and unfortunately ignored in SICKO and some of the ensuing discussion is the epidemic-like spread of some very serious diseases. One can see this for example in the almost epic-like fast growing and dangerous BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). The name was coined by Republicans and mainstream commentators alarmed in 2002-3 at the appearance of this local but virulent ailment. By 2007 almost two-thirds of Americans suffer from it despite the best intervention efforts of the DC press corp, the Republican Party and elite elements of the Democratic Party (the DLC, Joe Lieberman, David Broder, Peretz, Beinart, Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, and most Democratic advisers). The disease has confounded experts with its fast growth and its resistance to their voices of alarm and reason. Amazingly, the medical community has found a link between immunity to the disease and mental feebleness, moral degeneracy, the authoritarian mindset, and the ethically challenged. The Republican Party and the DC press corp have called for an infusion of new PRIVATE and corporate funds from well-meaning contributors to help combat the disease's spread.
July 11, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the issues progressives almost always win. Few agreed with Reagan on policies. The Republicans seem though to be having some trouble finding a charmer who is not obviously incompetent or insane and there is always the hope that, after 8 years of Bush, the swiftboats will just spin around in circles making a lot of noise while being washed over by a very large wave of sanity.
global citizen
July 11, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno about the Merit-based, though I'd hope so. There are some really hopeful signs that airwaves dominance is perhaps going to suffer the same change in "the Force" with which Jared Bernstein has opened this interesting conversation.
I've been spending a bit of time this morning looking to see what I could find out about the demographics of the media audience, with a special emphasis on the nemeses of Progressivism on television and radio. Here's a bit of what I've found out.
The crowd at Concord had paid as much as $100 for an evening of rhetorical red meat for the right-wing faithful. At first, we weren't disappointed. But by the end of the night, I wasn't the only one checking my watch.
Last (aren't you glad?), people might find Mark Fisher's piece, Liberal Talk Radio Already Exists, encouraging. While the liberalism probably is to anemic for us "red tofu" types (<jokemode></jokemode). The analysis is interesting.
aMike
July 11, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, aMike for this heartening info. And I wonder if Ann Coulter's wearing out her welcome. No way of knowing this, but I'll bet her speaker fees are slumping (an excellent market test of this thesis, btw).
July 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Dr. Bernstein. I think there's a shift well underway.
Can it be blown? I don't think that's to worry about. I think that people of high profile and standing, like yourself, who are appropriately inclined morally, ethically, and otherwise, simply need to learn to stake out their positions and stand their ground, instead of going where they think the wind is blowing. They _are_ the wind, and if they don't go where their hearts and souls tell them they should, it doesn't blow at all.
That's what politics is really about. Not following the wind of public opinion and conventional wisdom, but leading it. Generating air pressure, not being sucked into a vacuum.
In New Testament Greek (I believe ancient Hebrew is similar on this point), the word for wind - "pneuma", which is the ancestor for our modern English word for air pressure, "pneumatic", is also the word for _spirit_. The root of this word, "pneo", means breath, but I think it also relates to the capacity for language.
Where the language is empty, where there are are no ideas being both owned and spoken, there is no spirit, and there can be no political influence, or "air pressure."
Maybe, then, to borrow a sports metaphor, to be on defense in politics is to lose; and to be on offense is to win. Conservatives have been on offense for a while, but they're having to go on defense now. The question is, what will progressives do? Stick to playing losing defense, or take up a winning offense?
By the way, after reading more of your posts, I can see that you're one of the good guys. Kudos to you, good sir, and I apologize if I've been hard on you in the past. 8^)
July 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the Iraq war first started there was no full fledged distaste by the public, it was all "I support the troops", "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." It started to turn with the first death of an American GI. The story of this dead GI may have been written only in a big city newspaper in a Blue State, perhaps the Philadelphia Enquirer where the GI was from, and maybe not a lot of people outside Philadelphia took notice.
Eventually, as the war went on, more and more big cities reported the deaths of neighborhood GIs. As time passed and the war raged, it started to affect small towns across the country, perhaps a little story of a dead GI in some small town newspaper, The East Yickwaterville Times Picyune. As more and more people in more and more little towns, in more and more cities, in more and more states, were affected by the war, the opinion started to change till the time came when a vast majority of the public turned against this war. The "I support the troops" battle cry seemed to wane for the rational among us, being left only to conservative radio talk show aficienados and FOX NEWS fans
Epilogue; (satire)
Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss
of GA took to the floor of the Senate today to blast Michael Moore's new film, Sicko.
Followed by a myriad of other Republican Senators and TV appearances by think tank members from AEI, CATO, Heritage Fdn., etc
all condmened "Big Government Medicine" Socialized Medicine and "The Government Bureaucracy". "We don't want to allow Government to get between the American public and their doctors", bellowed Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.
NYTimes: 23,987 more Americans lost their health care since January of this year as health care costs rose 4 times that of inflation. In ever increasing numbers, more and more people in states, towns, and cities
across the country are losing their health care, while 71% of those still covered hold negative opinions of the system.
Its deja vu all over again.
July 11, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few months ago after one of her latest outrages Republican bloggers led by Glenn Reynolds were trying to distance themselves from her by getting up a petition of some such nonsense. I believe this was prompted by one of her appearances at CPAC.
July 11, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your fear; but I share the author's and aMike's hope. The fatigue that clearly exists isn't an end-state, but an opening; and the "Norquist effect" is in fact another one. Perhaps the only good thing to come out of the years of complete Republican control -- but it's a big thing -- is how clearly they demonstrated (for those who needed the demonstration) the complete failure of contempt for government as a philosophy of governance. That's the common thread through all this administration's disasters and missteps: the corruption, cronyism, distortion of science and general disdain for reality in the service of a predetermined agenda that had nothing to do with what we, or most people, think of as "good government." More and more lately, I've been hearing this theme (which I've harped on in my dinky corner of the world for years) work its way into the general discourse: when you put the levers of government in the hands of people who hate government, this is what you get. (Or as Al Franken puts it, Republicans always say government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.) This must become the overarching theme for Democrats, and all progressives: if you want effective government, vote for people who believe in governing.
July 11, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right -- They've "jumped the shark" on that one.
When Obama visited our medium-sized South Carolina city, the Republican spokesperson could only come up with what to me sounded like very tired cliches about him being "liberal". There was no specific response to anything Obama said. The Republican hardly seemed to have any idea what was going on. I have no idea if this is typical -- it may be too early in the campaign to draw conclusions -- but it seemed to me that this particular Republican was in the process of losing their grip.
Obama made a bit hit, by the way. More than twice as many people showed up as the most optimistic forecast.
July 11, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the info.
probably the biggest strategic mistake progressives have made in decades has been to ignore the talk radio monopoly allowed when reagan killed the fairness doctrine.
the talk radio monopoly has been the single most important factor in enabling this bush/chenney disaster. it's like Paul Revere in reverse. while the fuedalists and royalists took over all three branches of government and started shredding the constitution limbaugh and his wanabes screamed look out for the arabs. they gave us all the excuses and lies to make it happen and made sure those in the media who questioned bush were marginalized. the lies that got us into this disaster in iraq couldn't have been sold without the propaganda power provided by the talk radio monopoly.
the TR monopoly allows the GOP to control the debate despite it's being wrong so often. as a propaganda tool it is more effective than print and TV where, except for obviously partisan TV and print outlets, there is still some accountability when someone lies repeatedly.
talk radio allows levels of uncontested repetition not possible in any other medium. much of it's audience is also semi-captive. sure, you can always change the station or turn it off. but in many parts of the country there are no alternatives for those who are interested in current events or politics and want to get it while working or driving and before going home to relax and fight the family for the remote. it's the perfect propaganda machine.
more than 20% of Americans have said they get their news from talk
radio. but talk radio is bigger than that because of the trickle-up
effect it has on the rest of the media. by the time the evening TV talking heads discuss an issue the GOP flaks and politicians know they can be certain that the taking points they use will have already been repeatedly jammed into the ears of tens of millions of americans all over the country.
the other news sources are much more selective and time shortened. talk radio goes just about 24/7, just turn on your radio anywhere in the US. the blogs are also much more selective. thay can be effective but not for overall framing.
when progressives put down their cds and books and monitor the talk radio monopoly for a bit they will get a taste of how ESSENTIAL the talk radio monopoly is to sell anything republican, for propping up bush and promoting wars and supremes, and for swiftboating their favorite causes and candidates. they continue to intimidate and threaten any GOP rep who would think of crossing bush.
a new fairness doctrine, demonopolization, protesting and boycotting the local talk radio stations might be good starts to getting these Paul Reveres in reverse out of the media control business.
July 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My university was Coulterized two years running by the local Young Republicans, first in 2004-2005 and then in 2005-2006. In both those instances outside funding allowed her to come to campus. The second time she was debated by a woman on the political science faculty who used a brilliant kind of jujutsu on her. Every time she described a liberal in some scummy term, my colleague made references to being a soccer mom, taking her kids to little league, etc., in the process of rebutting the demon-image. Coulter simply didn't know what to do.
We were also Horowitzed and Tammy Bruced in 2005-2006. That marked the high point of battery on liberals on campus. Last Year, all that happened to us was Horowitz' Students for Academic Freedom Whacking the University for showing An Inconvenient Truth. That was pretty stale, and instead of going into crisis management mode the campus uttered a very large Yawn. So these may be other instances of a change in The Force.
aMike
July 11, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW I agree we just lost another local troop today they reported on the local noon news. The town I live in is about 150-175K but we have lots of little towns surrounding us. The people in the small towns of america are tired of losing their men and women to this mess in Iraq. I came within a hairs breadth of losing my Medicaid 2 yrs ago. Fortunately I appealed it and they figured out a way for me to keep it as I have to take daily medication that I only pay a 2 dollar co pay for, if I had to pay for it at cost it would cost me $180 bucks a month. The medication I take is Plavix as a blood thinner due to having had 2 mini strokes in as many months.
July 11, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe there's an overall reality check occurring in this country when it comes to the citizens and their politicians. Maybe people have finally had it with lies, sound bytes, election year slogans and corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Maybe people are sick of life getting worse in this country while our "leaders" insist it's great and getting better.
That's a lot of maybes but all in all I see it as a glimmer of hope. The only thing that seems to get the average citizen in this country off his or her lazy keisters and gets them to stick their feet up Washington's is when life gets bad enough. And if we all look around we'll see that life is indeed pretty freakin' bad for the US while it is indeed great for the THEM. The only people doing well are the politicians and that mysterious top 1% - and those are the people to whom they are really behooven. So maybe the average Joe and Josephine are finally starting to ask "HEY! What about the rest of us?"
Health care, education, taxes, inflation, jobs, gas prices... these are things that really do effect all of us citizens of this country directly and daily. We are all sick of giant companies getting subsidies out of our tax dollars and actually getting REFUNDS instead of paying taxes yet we can't get a vacation or a reasonable salary. And if this nation knew just how much money went into BS pork projects there'd be millions and millions of pitchforks and torches tearing DC apart in a matter of days. And those politicians can stick their "we're bringing business to the region / it's good for the economy" BS when it comes to these pork projects. It's their cronies that are getting these obscene contracts, they aren't doing the average citizen much damned good at all. And I know I personally am tired of dishing out 35% of my income to pay these clowns in DC and all their crooked cronies. Screw this. Screw all of it.
I think that the Republican tactic of using and appealing to ideology to forward their personal agendas of greed and corruption is finally being seen by the masses (both real liberals and real conservatives) as just the pile of manure that it truly is. I guess people are starting to realizing that ideology doesn't pay the bills, put food on the table or send our kids to college. Now excuse me, I need to sharpen my pitchfork and run to Home Depot for a few pieces of lumber to make some torches. >:D
July 11, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that bizarre tie-in myself. The notion that you could punch a hole in the health care debate by arguing that Britain's system let terrorists in the door is simply ridiculous. Furthermore, it's obvious they need to take a walk through the average medical school and conduct an ethnographic survey.
Of course the most ridiculous were the soft news reports in the MSM about Michael Moore's "Sicko" that spent more time citing flaws in the nationalized models rather than discussing the movie, let alone discussing anything substantive about the debate. We expect polemical grandstanding from Moore, but to have MSM journalists do it is revolting. It's like they've caught the "FoxNews" virus and suffer from the delusion that polemical imbalance for the other side makes the world a balanced place.
July 11, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree in part. Truth, factuality and candor are breaking back into the public psyche. However, I think this is happening mainly because people have come to regard the Bush administration as untruthful and corrupt. If we look to George Lakoff and his idea of framing, we would expect the GOP/neocon framing phrases like "plan for failure" and "partial birth abortion" to become resurgent once the party leadership has repaired itself.
I agree that they're selling snake oil, but it's easy to sell snake oil to people who are badly in need of cheap cures. Our first mission is not only to steal back the high ground with easily understood, morally based frames and phraseology, but then to link these ideas to the need for an effective, right-sized government.
e.g., Your tax cut under Bush, should you actually have received one, is nowhere near enough to fund your own anti-terrorism program, not enough to fix your kid's school, not enough to rebuild your town's sewer system and your state's highways, and certainly not enough to clean the atmosphere and our precious waterways. Nor is it enough to pay for what your increasingly expensive health insurance refuses to pay. For all that and more, each of us must contribute to the common good, funding to take care of our mutual needs. That, instead of the needs of big monopolies and billionaires who should start paying their fair share to the country that made them rich.
July 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink