The Washington Post's Greg Sargent provides an illuminating link to a 2007 National Review interview with South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint--Tea Party booster and ultra-conservative firebrand--in which DeMint praises Mitt Romney's ability to "take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured.”
As Sergant points out, this attitude lies in stark contrast to DeMint's current attitude. A DeMint aide has leaked to the press "But he [DeMint] would never consider backing Romney again unless he admits that his Massachusetts health care plan was a colossal mistake.”
So how is it that in 2007 DeMint praised RomneyCare, but in 2011 he thinks it was "a colossal mistake?" The answer, of course, is that in the intervening time Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress passed a national health bill closely modeled on Romney's Massachusetts plan.
It is difficult to imagine a more vivid example of how the current Republican party is utterly uninterested in public policy or serving the interests of the electorate. Instead, they formulate positions solely on narrow partisan grounds. If Obama is for it, then they are against it. Period. Full stop. This attitude is appalling, very easy to understand, and disastrous for the country.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Conservative Taxophobia
Jon Chait has just published an excellent essay on the conservative fixation on tax cuts.
Highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand this phenomenon.
Highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand this phenomenon.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Modern Right: The New Marxists
One of the enduring themes of the Superman comic book series is the existence of an alternate world—Bizarro earth (Htrae) in which everything is backwards. In Bizarro world lives a Bizarro Superman and a Bizarro Jimmy Olsen, etc. The motto of Bizzaro world is “Us do opposite of all Earthly things!”
The modern conservative movement increasingly resembles Bizarro Marxism, the underlying philosophy of the communist system, opposition to which practically defined the conservative movement in the post-WWII years. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, opposition to communism has understandably faded in prominence. Nonetheless, the conservative movement has recently—bizarrely, if you will—begun to mimic their former adversaries, in a Bizarro sort of way.
Modern conservatism shares many characteristics with Marxist thinking.
The modern conservative movement increasingly resembles Bizarro Marxism, the underlying philosophy of the communist system, opposition to which practically defined the conservative movement in the post-WWII years. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, opposition to communism has understandably faded in prominence. Nonetheless, the conservative movement has recently—bizarrely, if you will—begun to mimic their former adversaries, in a Bizarro sort of way.
Modern conservatism shares many characteristics with Marxist thinking.
- Both are obsessed with class struggle. Marxists see the struggle through the lens of exploitation in which the capitalist bosses exploit the workers by appropriating the value of the labor. Modern conservatives see the same phenomenon, except the roles are reversed. According to your average Rush Limbaugh listener, it is the hard-working entrepreneurs who are exploited by the lazy masses who benefit from the capitalists’ hard work without contributing much of their own. I have never met a committed conservative who wasn’t mindful—seemingly on a daily basis—of the danger poor people (and their liberal champions) posed to the health of society and their own prosperity and security.
- Both hold monomaniacal world views. For the Marxist, all phenomenon can be explained by the conflict and inevitable economic exploitation of the workers by capitalist bosses. For the modern conservative, all phenomenon can be explained by the absolute value of liberty and the wretched human tendency to try to limit it. Conservatives generally interpret “liberty” narrowly as the ability to make a profit with minimal interference from the government. To be sure, some conservatives are also concerned with family values, and others are concerned with a robust form of nationalistic militarism. There is even one strand of conservatism—exemplified by G.W. Bush and other neo-cons—that believes in spreading democracy throughout the world, by force if necessary. However, these other concerns sharply divide the conservative movement and come and come in popularity (the neo-con movement seems particularly out of favor these days, except perhaps in the pages of the Weekly Standard). The only persistent feature that unifies all conservatives is a near-fanatical devotion to tax cuts—especially those aimed at high-income earners—and lessening the regulatory burden on business. The distinguishing characteristic of the monomaniac is the attempt to explain virtually all phenomena—however unlikely that explanation may be—by invoking the favored universal principle. Many conservatives have argued that the recent catastrophic financial collapse was the result of too much government regulation! To anyone who knows anything about the 2008 crisis, this account is, to put it mildly, at odds with reality. Neo-Marxists will explain failures in education in terms of teachers, administrators, and policy-makers exploiting their students. Freudians will explain artistic achievement in terms of sexual psychology, and so on. Matt Groenig once parodied the mono-maniacal college professor shouting the phrase “The nation that controls magnesium controls the universe!”
- Both offer class descriptions in starkly moral terms. For the Marxist, the capitalist is described in the most disparaging fashion and the entire thrust of history and the duty of the leaders of the communist struggle is the annihilation of capitalist domination, and, by implication, individual capitalists. The working masses, on the other hand, are portrayed as universally honest, hard-working, and decent, tainted only when acting as a tool for capitalist propaganda (class membership and class consciousness are not the same). So too, the modern conservative has a peculiar tendency to associate material success with moral virtue. The wealthy are understood as hard-working, creative, and talented individuals whose success comes entirely from their superior character. The unsuccessful are described as lazy welfare queens who mooch off of the success of others.
Of course, this is nonsense. This moral interpretation of class membership completely ignores factors that determine success that are beyond our control, such as one’s circumstance of birth and simply benefiting from the luck of being at the right place at the right time. Yes, many wealthy people are very smart and hard-working. Other wealthy people, through a combination of greed and hubris, nearly destroyed the world’s economy. Indeed, many conservatives remain deeply uncomfortable discussing the great financial crisis of 2008 where the primary culprits were clearly wealthy and highly educated. It turns out that not all looters and moochers are poor folks. - Both believe in a Manichean world view in which the universal forces of light and darkness vie for supremacy. The only difference between them lies in the identities of the good guys and bad guys. Otherwise, both Marxists and modern conservatives see world events as a rather simplistic morality play. The tragedy of this is that it ignores the vast majority of ordinary people who are neither Goldman Sachs traders nor professional street beggars, such as people like, well, me and everyone I know.
Friday, March 4, 2011
On the backs of. . .
One of the phrases I wish would disappear from public discourse is one that is routinely used--typically from those on the Left--to push back against any suggestion that a favored interest group should sacrifice. Donna Brazille recently remarked on ABC's "This Week" that Wisconsin's budget deficit should not be balanced "on the backs" of members of public unions. Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill made a similar comment soon after (I forget where).
The problem with insisting that sacrifice should not be borne on the backs of an interest group is that it is endlessly repeatable. OK, if Group A should bear no burden, then neither should Group B, nor Group C, and so on. At the end of this we arrive at our destination: No one should contribute at all and the problem goes unsolved.
A much better approach is an appeal for shared sacrifice. Members of public unions should refuse to agree to cutbacks in benefits UNLESS other interest groups are willing to do their part as well.
The problem with insisting that sacrifice should not be borne on the backs of an interest group is that it is endlessly repeatable. OK, if Group A should bear no burden, then neither should Group B, nor Group C, and so on. At the end of this we arrive at our destination: No one should contribute at all and the problem goes unsolved.
A much better approach is an appeal for shared sacrifice. Members of public unions should refuse to agree to cutbacks in benefits UNLESS other interest groups are willing to do their part as well.
The "He Said, She Said" Phenomenon
Many left-of-center media critics have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that the MSM has a tendency to frame partisan and ideological disputes, especially about economic policy, in the form of "One side thinks this, while another side thinks that." The problem with this approach is that it is often inappropriately applied in cases in which there really is a strong professional consensus on one side only. Reporting these as a "he said, she said" story is neither accurate nor objective.
"Walter Cronkite reports that Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon, but Bart Sibrel says that it was all staged on a Hollywood set. News at 11:00."
There are two reasons the media does this. First, they have been relentlessly criticized by the Right for years for liberal media bias. As a consequence of this many in the media--eager to inoculate themselves from this criticism--have taken the opportunity to frame every Left-Right dispute as though each side were equally correct.
Second, most reporters are simply not very knowledgeable about economic issues, which are often quite technical, so "he said, she said" frees them from having to delve too deeply into a subject for whicxh they have little comfort or expertise.
I ran across a perfect example of this in today's USA Today. In a story entitled "Shutdown's risk to recovery disputed". Richard Wolf opens with:
"Would a partial government shutdown--or the spending cuts needed to avoid it--risk the nation's economic recovery and nascent job creation?
President Obama says it could. Republican leaders in Congress say it wouldn't. Economists are split roughly down the middle."
The story goes on to cite three sources claiming that the Republican plan to cut an additional 61 billion in spending would threaten the recovery. Who was cited? Goldman Sachs, Moody's Analytics, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve. None of these sources have any association with the Democratic Party of Liberal political causes.
But, the report goes on to note, "More conservative economists began firing back this week." The article cites two examples. The first is from Stanford University economist John Taylor. Who is John Taylor? He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during in the George W. Bush Administration. He was also a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the George H. W. Bush administration, and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Ford Administration. His role as a public intellectual to is essentially support whatever economic position that reflects current Republican views. For a complete run-down of Taylor's role as a reliable spokesman for party policy, see the results of Jon Chait's extensive research on the subject. Chait concludes that "John Boehner citing John Taylor as a supporter of his program is about as meaningful as John Boehner citing Mitch McConnell."
The second example is from Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Who is Mr. Holtz-Eakin? He served as a Senior Staff Economist on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and was Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisers to President George W. Bush. He was later hired as chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Recently, Holtz-Eakin became president of American Action Forum, a Conservative think tank. Since joining American Action Forum, Holtz-Eakin has appeared on Fox News to argue against the Obama health care bill.
There you have it. The only two professional economists the USA Today article cited who question whether the suggested GOP House budget cuts would threaten the recovery are life-long Republicans with deep professional ties to GOP politics and the conservative movement. These are hardly non-partisan sources. The article could have just as well cited NY Times columnist Paul Krugman as a critic of the proposed GOP budget cuts, but what would be the point? His partisan credentials are as well established as his economic expertise.
So two deeply partisan spokesmen disagree with three non-partisan analysts. This is what USA Today refers to as economists "split roughly down the middle." Very roughly I'd say.
"Walter Cronkite reports that Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon, but Bart Sibrel says that it was all staged on a Hollywood set. News at 11:00."
There are two reasons the media does this. First, they have been relentlessly criticized by the Right for years for liberal media bias. As a consequence of this many in the media--eager to inoculate themselves from this criticism--have taken the opportunity to frame every Left-Right dispute as though each side were equally correct.
Second, most reporters are simply not very knowledgeable about economic issues, which are often quite technical, so "he said, she said" frees them from having to delve too deeply into a subject for whicxh they have little comfort or expertise.
I ran across a perfect example of this in today's USA Today. In a story entitled "Shutdown's risk to recovery disputed". Richard Wolf opens with:
"Would a partial government shutdown--or the spending cuts needed to avoid it--risk the nation's economic recovery and nascent job creation?
President Obama says it could. Republican leaders in Congress say it wouldn't. Economists are split roughly down the middle."
The story goes on to cite three sources claiming that the Republican plan to cut an additional 61 billion in spending would threaten the recovery. Who was cited? Goldman Sachs, Moody's Analytics, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve. None of these sources have any association with the Democratic Party of Liberal political causes.
But, the report goes on to note, "More conservative economists began firing back this week." The article cites two examples. The first is from Stanford University economist John Taylor. Who is John Taylor? He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during in the George W. Bush Administration. He was also a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the George H. W. Bush administration, and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Ford Administration. His role as a public intellectual to is essentially support whatever economic position that reflects current Republican views. For a complete run-down of Taylor's role as a reliable spokesman for party policy, see the results of Jon Chait's extensive research on the subject. Chait concludes that "John Boehner citing John Taylor as a supporter of his program is about as meaningful as John Boehner citing Mitch McConnell."
The second example is from Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Who is Mr. Holtz-Eakin? He served as a Senior Staff Economist on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and was Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisers to President George W. Bush. He was later hired as chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Recently, Holtz-Eakin became president of American Action Forum, a Conservative think tank. Since joining American Action Forum, Holtz-Eakin has appeared on Fox News to argue against the Obama health care bill.
There you have it. The only two professional economists the USA Today article cited who question whether the suggested GOP House budget cuts would threaten the recovery are life-long Republicans with deep professional ties to GOP politics and the conservative movement. These are hardly non-partisan sources. The article could have just as well cited NY Times columnist Paul Krugman as a critic of the proposed GOP budget cuts, but what would be the point? His partisan credentials are as well established as his economic expertise.
So two deeply partisan spokesmen disagree with three non-partisan analysts. This is what USA Today refers to as economists "split roughly down the middle." Very roughly I'd say.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Feelings and Facts: How to Respond to Economic Crisis?
There is considerable sentiment coursing through the national consciousness that goes something like this:
"We got into this economic mess through a binge of overspending, so now is the time to cut back."
This is an understandable reaction. Like the drunk who wants to put his life in order, to cure a crisis brought about by overspending, stop overspending and become a teetotaler, fiscally speaking that is. As emotionally satisfying as this sounds, it is also terribly misguided.
There is a good word for this economic theory. It is called Hooverism. David Leonhardt has a good article on our current fixation on this utterly discredited economic theory. The Republicans in Congress are pushing aggressively for a return to Hooverville, despite the fact that a slew of recent non-partisan economists have given various estimates about how these policies will increase unemployment and decrease growth.
What is the source of this current fixation on Hooverian economics? There are three underlying reasons.
"We got into this economic mess through a binge of overspending, so now is the time to cut back."
This is an understandable reaction. Like the drunk who wants to put his life in order, to cure a crisis brought about by overspending, stop overspending and become a teetotaler, fiscally speaking that is. As emotionally satisfying as this sounds, it is also terribly misguided.
There is a good word for this economic theory. It is called Hooverism. David Leonhardt has a good article on our current fixation on this utterly discredited economic theory. The Republicans in Congress are pushing aggressively for a return to Hooverville, despite the fact that a slew of recent non-partisan economists have given various estimates about how these policies will increase unemployment and decrease growth.
What is the source of this current fixation on Hooverian economics? There are three underlying reasons.
- Psychologically, is is a common sense response to crisis brought on by overspending. Nonetheless, the vast majority of professional economists believe that when weakness in demand in the private sector leads to unemployment and reduced growth, the best response is increased government spending. Unfortunately, although the 2009 stimulus achieved pretty much what it was designed to achieve, it has become an article of faith that it failed. President Obama's spectacular ineptitude explaining and promoting his own policies is the primary culprit here.
- Ideologically, the Republican party is commented to small government as a matter of principle. This point cannot be overemphasized. Jonathan Chait wrote a widely-discussed article about this a several years ago. Republican commitment to small government is a core principle in a way totally unlike Democratic commitment to activist government. Republicans will oppose activist government intervention in the economy as an a priori principle, even when the policy succeeds. An excellent contemporary example of this is TARP and the GM bailout. By any objective measure, these policies were a huge success. TARP will almost certainly turn a profit and the GM bailout saved hundreds of thousands of jobs at a time of dire crisis, revitalized a core of the American manufacturing sector, and will almost certainly end up costing the government nothing. Yet, it is still an article of faith among tea-partiers and other conservatives that these were bad policies.
- Politically, the GOP has no incentive to favor policies that would improve the economy as long as there is a Democrat in the White House. I know that this sounds hopelessly cynical, but it is nonetheless I think an accurate assessment of the current political climate.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Blake Edwards: 1922-2010
Blake Edwards died December 15, 2010 at 88. He was one of my favorite directors in the 1960s. He had an amazing string of really good films in the first half of the decade. He also did a few excellent comedies later in his career ("10" in particular).
Below is an interview with Larry King that contains the funniest story about an attempted suicide you'll ever read. I recall seeing him tell the same story on the old Tom Synder show Tomorrow.
************
EDWARDS: Oh, yes. My depression has been with me most of my life that I can remember. I have spells of it.
KING: Still?
EDWARDS: Yes, still. I haven't for quite a while.
KING: Do you take medication?
EDWARDS: I'm not on it now. I was.
KING: Did Julie help?
EDWARDS: Oh yes. Yes. I don't think I could have gotten -- that sounds melodramatic, but I really don't think I could have gotten through without her.
KING: It is clinical, right? I mean they...
EDWARDS: Yes.
KING: Someone would look at you and say hey, there's no reason for you to be depressed.
EDWARDS: No, it's clinical.
KING: So it's not explainable?
EDWARDS: No. No. It has nothing to do with lifestyle and things like that.
KING: Did you ever think of harming yourself?
EDWARDS: Excuse me?
KING: Ever think of harming yourself?
EDWARDS: Yes. In fact, I can tell you some very funny stories about that.
KING: Tell me one.
EDWARDS: OK. I had decided that the time had come. I didn't want to live anymore. I went up on a bluff in Malibu where we lived. I had decided on the method, which was probably to slash my wrists, because I figured I could bleed into the lawn and nobody would notice it. And, I got a straight razor blade and I sat down in a chair on a beautiful sunny day looking out at the Pacific. I'm in my tennis shorts, and as I prepared to do the deed, I felt a wet nose at my ear and I responded. It was my Great Dane and he knew something was going on. He just knew and I said "Get away. Go away." I pushed him away and finally he became so almost abusive trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I was doing. I had locked him up in my studio, but I could see him through the glass because it was all glass studio.
KING: He knew?
EDWARDS: Yes, he knew. He was jumping and running and whining. You could hear him. And I thought well, in a little while that won't make any difference. I won't have to worry about him and I'm ready to do it again. And I feel this wet soggy thing at my crotch, and I look down and it's a tennis ball and our other dog, our retriever had now brought me a tennis ball and he knew what the hell was going on and he kept fetching this tennis ball and I kept saying, "Go away," and throwing the tennis ball.
KING: This is the suicide gone wrong.
EDWARDS: Right. So finally, I figured, I know what I'll do. I'll throw this ball over the cliff. It will go down on the beach. By the time he finds it and retrieves it...
KING: You're dead.
EDWARDS: I'm dead, right? So I wind up and I throw the tennis ball and I dislocate my shoulder, and I fall over backwards in the chair and I decided at that moment that today was not the day for it.
KING: The gang that couldn't shoot straight.
EDWARDS: So I turn around and I started back toward the house feeling just terrible, and I thought oh, wait a minute. You know, always the one to worry about other people and I thought that razor blade's in the lawn somewhere. So I went over looking for the razor blade and stepped on it and cut, opened my heel up about that deep and ended up in the emergency in Malibu saying "hurry up or I'm going to bleed to death." That was one suicide attempt.
- 1991 Switch
A loosely-based remake of reincarnation/gender bending fantasy "Goodbye Charlie" of the 1960s, Ellen Barkin plays a misogynistic murder victim who is reincarnated as a woman. Jimmy Smits plays the very confused best friend of the deceased. - 1987 Blind Date
A minor effort, but quite funny, this Bruce Willis/Kim Basinger story of a blind date gone bad. John Larroquette has a hilarious supporting role as the insanely jealous ex-boyfriend. - 1979 "10"
Edwards' last great film, this Dudley Moore/Julie Andrews vehicle about the perils of male menopause made a star out of Moore and introduced us to Brian Dennehy and Bo Derek. - 1965 The Great Race
An incredibly entertaining sprawling epic comedy in the vein of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" starring Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, and Natalie Wood. It focuses on a early 20th century fictional car race from New York to Paris. Lemmon's Dr. Evil is a foil for Curtis's The Great Leslie. - 1964 A Shot in the Dark
A follow-up to the previous year's The Pink Panther - 1963 The Pink Panther
Edwards and Peter Sellers famously hated each other, but they collaborated very effectively in a classic series of Pink Panther comedies in the 1960s and 1970s. The first two were the best. - 1962 Days of Wine and Roses
A classic story about alcoholism with Jack Lemmon (in his first dramatic role) and Lee Remick. Booze destroys their marriage and nearly destroys them. Bleak but very good. Classic Johnny Mercer/Henry Mancini theme song of the same name. - 1962 Experiment in Terror
A very good bank robbery thriller with Lee Remick and Glenn Ford. Remick is the terrorized suburban victim, Ford is the helpful FBI agent, and Ross Martin (pre-"Wild, Wild West") as the very bad bank-robber/kidnapper. - 1961 Breakfast at Tiffany's
A beloved film starring a luminous Audrey Hepburn at her peak and George Peppard in a sanitized version of Truman Capote's story. It includes the classic Johnny Mercer/Henry Mancini theme "Moon River".
Below is an interview with Larry King that contains the funniest story about an attempted suicide you'll ever read. I recall seeing him tell the same story on the old Tom Synder show Tomorrow.
************
EDWARDS: Oh, yes. My depression has been with me most of my life that I can remember. I have spells of it.
KING: Still?
EDWARDS: Yes, still. I haven't for quite a while.
KING: Do you take medication?
EDWARDS: I'm not on it now. I was.
KING: Did Julie help?
EDWARDS: Oh yes. Yes. I don't think I could have gotten -- that sounds melodramatic, but I really don't think I could have gotten through without her.
KING: It is clinical, right? I mean they...
EDWARDS: Yes.
KING: Someone would look at you and say hey, there's no reason for you to be depressed.
EDWARDS: No, it's clinical.
KING: So it's not explainable?
EDWARDS: No. No. It has nothing to do with lifestyle and things like that.
KING: Did you ever think of harming yourself?
EDWARDS: Excuse me?
KING: Ever think of harming yourself?
EDWARDS: Yes. In fact, I can tell you some very funny stories about that.
KING: Tell me one.
EDWARDS: OK. I had decided that the time had come. I didn't want to live anymore. I went up on a bluff in Malibu where we lived. I had decided on the method, which was probably to slash my wrists, because I figured I could bleed into the lawn and nobody would notice it. And, I got a straight razor blade and I sat down in a chair on a beautiful sunny day looking out at the Pacific. I'm in my tennis shorts, and as I prepared to do the deed, I felt a wet nose at my ear and I responded. It was my Great Dane and he knew something was going on. He just knew and I said "Get away. Go away." I pushed him away and finally he became so almost abusive trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I was doing. I had locked him up in my studio, but I could see him through the glass because it was all glass studio.
KING: He knew?
EDWARDS: Yes, he knew. He was jumping and running and whining. You could hear him. And I thought well, in a little while that won't make any difference. I won't have to worry about him and I'm ready to do it again. And I feel this wet soggy thing at my crotch, and I look down and it's a tennis ball and our other dog, our retriever had now brought me a tennis ball and he knew what the hell was going on and he kept fetching this tennis ball and I kept saying, "Go away," and throwing the tennis ball.
KING: This is the suicide gone wrong.
EDWARDS: Right. So finally, I figured, I know what I'll do. I'll throw this ball over the cliff. It will go down on the beach. By the time he finds it and retrieves it...
KING: You're dead.
EDWARDS: I'm dead, right? So I wind up and I throw the tennis ball and I dislocate my shoulder, and I fall over backwards in the chair and I decided at that moment that today was not the day for it.
KING: The gang that couldn't shoot straight.
EDWARDS: So I turn around and I started back toward the house feeling just terrible, and I thought oh, wait a minute. You know, always the one to worry about other people and I thought that razor blade's in the lawn somewhere. So I went over looking for the razor blade and stepped on it and cut, opened my heel up about that deep and ended up in the emergency in Malibu saying "hurry up or I'm going to bleed to death." That was one suicide attempt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)