Posts Tagged Democratic Party

The N.R.A. Protection Racket – NYTimes.com


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The N.R.A. Protection Racket

By RICHARD W. PAINTER

For years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these “protectors” would not be around for long.

The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the “free speech” that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.

Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.

A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.

This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one’s heirs in the second grade?

Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.

Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.

 The N.R.A. Protection Racket – NYTimes.com.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Politicians Represent a Nation That Cannot Agree


TED KAUFMAN

Politicians Represent a Nation That Cannot Agree

 

“Why can’t those idiots in Washington get their act together and solve a problem like the fiscal cliff, when everyone knows what a realistic solution looks like?”

That’s pretty much the question I get asked these days when I run into people at the coffee shop or my favorite supermarket. There is no short answer, but let’s start with the fact that our elected representatives might be a lot of things, but “idiot” is not a word I would use to describe 99 percent of them.

J.D. Crowe / Mobile Press-Register

I teach a course on Federal Policy at the Duke Law School. The course requires law students to spend a semester in Washington D.C., where they work part time in some department of the federal government. As part of the course, they meet with members of Congress, congressional and executive branch staff, lobbyists, representatives of interest groups, TV and print reporters, and scholars from D.C. think tanks.

Last year the class had back-to-back meetings with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Sen. Kerry is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and of course was the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2004. I have known him for years and admire his intellectual ability and his work ethic. Sen. Barrasso is less well-known but is a rising star in the Republican Party. Elected to the Senate in 2008, he serves on the Republican leadership team as Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. He is an orthopedic surgeon. I like him a lot and respect his intellect and dedication to his job as a senator.

The focus of both meetings, and most of the questions asked by students, concerned the budget deficit. Sen. Barrasso gave a comprehensive presentation of his views on the issues and gave numerous examples of why these views were important to and supported by his constituents back in Wyoming. Sen. Kerry did the same thing, again citing support for his views in his home state.

After the meetings I asked the students what they thought of the presentations. They came away with two impressions of the speakers. First, they felt that neither senator was just presenting his party’s agenda; each was presenting what he personally felt was in play in the budget debate. Second, the students agreed that each senator’s comments fairly represented the view of the people in the state he represented. I did, too.

Massachusetts gave Obama 61 percent of the vote in the last election and Wyoming gave Romney 69 percent.

Does it really surprise you that these two sincere, intelligent men find it difficult to reach agreement?

The budget is not something that is just endlessly debated by politicians in Washington. That debate simply reflects the fact that people in different parts of this country have very different views on what we need to do to avoid the fiscal cliff. It is that divide in the country at large, not just the divisions among our politicians,that make a deal so difficult.

All that being said, I think the odds at this point are that we will go over the cliff (or the slope, more accurately) very briefly after Dec. 31. Why? All but 13 Republican members of Congress have signed a pledge to never raise taxes. In recent weeks, a few of them have backed away from that pledge, but not enough for the House of Representatives to pass the tax increase on upper-income households that President Obama is insisting on.

The Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, and everyone’s taxes will automatically increase. Suddenly, everything will look different. Instead of voting to raise taxes on the upper 2 percent on Dec. 30, House members will be able to vote for a tax cut for the other 98 percent on Jan. 2.

Exactly the same outcome, but with symbolically different votes.

For those not in the top tax bracket, I doubt that even your first paycheck of 2013 will reflect any tax increase, because I expect the vote for a tax cut will come before Jan. 10, and we will avoid the immediate fiscal crisis.

On the longer range budget problems, I believe that in 2013 there will be a “grand bargain” between the President and Congress. The people I meet in my grocery store are right: We do know what a realistic solution looks like. The pieces are in place to make it happen, and I’ll be writing about them in future columns.

 Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Politicians Represent a Nation That Cannot Agree.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Remaking The Republican Party | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source


Remaking The Republican Party

Mitt Romney’s poor performance among minority voters, single women, and young people has led many top Republicans to call for an overhaul of the party’s image. Here are some options the GOP is considering to extend its appeal:

·         Start nominating hipper, more relatable 65-year-old men

·         Begin rolling the R’s in “deportation” and “border fence”

·         A bunch of abortions and stuff—whatever the gals want

·         Change nothing and wait for rest of country to come to its senses

·         Project youthful vibe by requiring Republican congressmen to walk around Capitol doing yo-yo tricks

·         Change party mascot to a Hispanic elephant

·         Start one of those Twitter hashtags

·         Eh, fuck it—just disenfranchise as many people as possible

 Remaking The Republican Party | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Free Wood Post – Controversial North Carolina Voter ID Law Allows Voters To Use NRA Membership or NASCAR Ticket Stub


Controversial North Carolina Voter ID Law Allows Voters To Use NRA Membership or NASCAR Ticket Stub

October 13, 2012

By Eric Hetvile

"North" "Carolina" "voter" "ID" "NASCAR" "Ticket" "stub" "NRA" "membership" "Free" "Wood" "Post"

The Republican-controlled legislature of North Carolina has just passed one of the most restrictive voter identification laws in the country.

Democratic critics are crying foul. The passing of this law occurs with only weeks to go before the Presidential election, and they claim that many poor or elderly voters who may likely vote Democratic will be unable to obtain the necessary paperwork in time to obtain their identification before the election. Another point of contention is what they say is a curious designation of what constitutes a proper ID.

The new law will allow voters to exercise their enfranchisement with a driver’s license, an NRA membership card, a hunting license, a NASCAR ticket stub, or a Piggly Wiggly Reward Card. University identification, high school diplomas, GEDs, or library cards will not be accepted. Democratic senators maintain that these were chosen to specifically benefit Republican candidates.

“Look. We talked a lot about this and this is what most of us decided is the kind of thing that would prove that you are a real American. This is not political at all. Anyone who says that is just being political themselves,” said Republican North Carolina state senator Red Collarman.

Opponents are gathering to challenge this law in court before election day.

 Free Wood Post.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Beyond God and Guns: Why the GOP May Lose the White Working Class | Alternet


 

Beyond God and Guns: Why the GOP May Lose the White Working Class

A new study busts harmful myths about white working class men and women.

September 20, 2012

 

 

What is “the white working class,” that much discussed, often criticized demographic group that many say will decide this election? You know them: They’re “bitter” and “cling” to “guns and religion,” in the (otherwise sympathetic) words of 2008 candidate Barack Obama. Many are members of “the 47 percent” of Americans dependent on government derided by Mitt Romney, who the Republican insists will vote for Obama – except many don’t know they’re in that moocher class, and plan to vote for Romney.

Just in time comes a study by the Public Religion Research Institute, which confounds most stereotypes of the white working class, while confirming a couple. It may force us to give up our caricature of the last group of Americans it’s still politically safe to caricature. They’re less conservative than most political analysts give them credit for – if you leave out the South.

First, a few definitional ground rules. As someone whose book is often described as being “about” the white working class, and why it left the Democratic Party, I’m painfully aware of the limitations of data and definitions of that much-discussed group. This study defines them as “non-Hispanic white Americans without a four-year college degree who hold non-salaried jobs.” Some polls define the white working class by income, but increasingly the more politically unique group – and the most politically troublesome for Democrats — is those without college degrees. Also: This is a new study and it doesn’t track the same group over election cycles, so we can’t know if their opinions have changed in the age of Obama, but it’s fascinating and useful nonetheless.

As most analysts have asserted, they are, as a group, trouble for Obama — in mid-August Romney led 48-35 — but there were interesting regional differences. Romney led Obama by a staggering 40 points in the South (62-22) while Obama actually led Romney 44-38 in the Midwest (hello, auto industry rescue?), and the two candidates were nearly tied in the West and Northeast. White working-class Protestants favor Romney 2-1, while Catholics are evenly split. Likewise, Romney clobbers Obama with men, but the candidates are tied for the votes of women. And younger white working-class voters support Obama.

A pattern emerges: Obama is doing surprisingly well with white working-class voters — but he may have to write off most older, Southern, white working-class Protestant men.

Overall, the study debunks lots of stereotypes: These non-college-educated whites are just about as likely as the college-educated to strongly identify with the Tea Party (13 vs. 10 percent), or to say the group shares their goals (34-31). Only one in 20 say abortion or same-sex marriage is the most important issue deciding their vote. More (50 percent) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases than illegal (45 percent.) Maybe surprisingly (at least to the Catholic bishops), a solid majority (56 percent) of white working-class Catholics think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 53 percent of Protestants think it should be illegal in all or most cases. They are just about as religiously observant as college-educated whites, although they are much more likely to identify as evangelical Protestants.

The study also confounds those who believe white working-class voters consistently vote against their own economic interests: Those who received food stamps in the last two years preferred Obama to Romney 48 to 36 percent, while two-thirds of those who hadn’t preferred Romney.

Oh, and this is fun: “Equal numbers of white working-class Americans (28 percent) and white college-educated Americans (27 percent) identify Fox News as their most trusted media source.”

The study finds, however, that a few of our political stereotypes are true: They are more likely than college-educated whites to say the government does too much for minorities and that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks, although, again, if you take out the South, the percentages drop. They are more likely than white college-educated voters to blame illegal immigration for their economic problems. They oppose same-sex marriage, but not overwhelmingly, 50 to 43 percent, and there again, there are huge differences by region, religion age and gender: Women, non-Southerners, Catholics and younger white working-class people favor same-sex marriage, while older Southern male Protestants oppose it.

I’m going to be honest: I like this study because it confirms all of my instincts (which, to be fair to me, are based on research and familiarity with actual white working-class people). It completely contradicts Charles Murray and the rest of the conservatives who define struggling white workers as part of the moocher class, people who’ve traded hard work, marriage and religious devotion for the dole: They work more hours (an average of 51 hours to 46 for the college educated). They are just as likely as college grads to call themselves religious.  They are more likely to be divorced or to have children “out of wedlock,” but the study concludes (as I do) that’s because of economic distress, rather than the other way around, as Murray asserts.

And rather than believe they can depend on government, they are alienated from government: Interestingly, more college-educated whites than working-class whites refer to the government as “our” government than “the” government. Yet they are overwhelmingly open to a Democratic message. From the study:

Seven-in-ten (70 percent) white working-class Americans believe the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy, and a majority (53 percent) say that one of the biggest problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life. Over 6-in-10 (62 percent) white working-class Americans favor raising the tax rate on Americans with household incomes of over $1 million per year.

There is some good news for Romney hidden in the tabs and back pages of the survey. For one thing, it’s possible that his disdain for “the 47 percent” of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, or who rely on some sort of government support, may not hurt him (although I believe it will). PRRI finds that even Americans who rely on government services still believe that people are too dependent on government: 71 percent who’ve received unemployment benefits  and 63 percent of those who’ve received food stamps in the last two years say poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.  It’s certainly possible that in November, many will vote for the candidate who agrees.

I’m not quite sure what to do with the data saying they are more likely to believe the government favors minorities, or that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as against blacks today. The latter is simply not borne out by any study anywhere. (Again, answers to those questions differ hugely by region, age and gender.)  And yet I think, given the rest of the survey results, maybe we can treat that attitude with some empathy, whether or not it’s born out by facts. As other surveys have shown, PRRI finds that working-class whites are more pessimistic about the future than any other economic or racial group.

Yet as I’ve said before, non-college-educated whites are more open to the Democratic message than they’ve been for a while. Barack Obama got a higher share of their votes than white Democrats John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale or Southerner Jimmy Carter (in his second term), according to exit poll information provided to me by the study’s sponsors, Robert Jones and Dan Cox (admittedly this is not exactly the same demographic they studied in 2012). Just as Republicans need to learn not to stereotype and write off vast swaths of the electorate, Democrats might need to think differently about the white middle class.

 Beyond God and Guns: Why the GOP May Lose the White Working Class | Alternet.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

The Political Awakening of a Republican: ‘I Had Viewed Whole Swaths of the Country and the World as Second-Class People’ | Alternet


 

The Political Awakening of a Republican: ‘I Had Viewed Whole Swaths of the Country and the World as Second-Class People’

A former Republican tells about how his experiences in post-Katrina New Orleans and then Iraq destroyed his Republican worldview.

September 10, 2012

 

Photo Credit: Gunnar Pippel/ Shutterstock.com 

I used to be a serious Republican, moderate and business-oriented, who planned for a public-service career in Republican politics.  But I am a Republican no longer.

There’s an old joke we Republicans used to tell that goes something like this: “If you’re young and not a Democrat, you’re heartless.  If you grow up and you’re not a Republican, you’re stupid.”  These days, my old friends and associates no doubt consider me the butt of that joke.  But I look on my “stupidity” somewhat differently.  After all, my real education only began when I was 30 years old.

This is the story of how in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and later in Iraq, I discovered that what I believed to be the full spectrum of reality was just a small slice of it and how that discovery knocked down my Republican worldview.

I always imagined that I was full of heart, but it turned out that I was oblivious.  Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their desserts.  As I came to recognize that poverty is not earned or chosen or deserved, and that our use of force is far less precise than I had believed, I realized with a shock that I had effectively viewed whole swaths of the country and the world as second-class people.

No longer oblivious, I couldn’t remain in today’s Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted.  The more I learned about reality, the more I started to care about people as people, and my values shifted.  Had I always known what I know today, it would have been clear that there hasn’t been a place for me in the Republican Party since the Free Soil days of Abe Lincoln.

Where I Came From

I grew up in a rich, white suburb north of Chicago populated by moderate, business-oriented Republicans.  Once upon a time, we would have been calledRockefeller Republicans.  Today we would be called liberal Republicans or slurred by the Right as “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs).

We believed in competition and the free market, in bootstraps and personal responsibility, in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.  We were financial conservatives who wanted less government. We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn’t been born into it.  We sided with management over labor and saw unions as a scourge.  We hated racism and loved Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly his dream that his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  We worried about the rise of the Religious Right and its social-conservative litmus tests. We were tough on crime, tough on national enemies. We believed in business, full stop.

I intended to run for office on just such a platform someday.  In the meantime, I founded the Republican club at my high school, knocked on doors and collected signatures with my father, volunteered on campaigns, socialized at fundraisers, and interned for Senator John McCain and Congressman Denny Hastert when he was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay’s chief deputy.

We went to mainstream colleges — the more elite the better — but lamented their domination by liberal professors, and I did my best to tune out their liberal views.  I joined the Republican clubs and the Federalist Society, and I read the Wall Street Journal and the Economist rather the New York Times.  George Will was a voice in the wilderness, Rush Limbaugh an occasional (sometimes guilty) pleasure.

Left Behind By the Party

In January 2001, I was one of thousands of Americans who braved the cold rain to attend and cheer George W. Bush’s inauguration.  After eight years hating “Slick Willie,” it felt good to have a Republican back in the White House.  But I knew that he wasn’t one of our guys.  We had been McCain fans, and even if we liked the compassionate bit of Bush’s conservatism, we didn’t care for his religiosity or his social politics.

Bush won a lot of us over with his hawkish response to 9/11, but he lost me with the Iraq War.  Weren’t we still busy in Afghanistan?  I didn’t see the urgency.

By then, I was at the Justice Department, working in an office that handled litigation related to what was officially called the Global War on Terror (or GWOT).  My office was tasked with opposing petitions for habeas corpus brought by Guantánamo detainees who claimed that they were being held indefinitely without charge.  The government’s position struck me as an abdication of a core Republican value: protecting the “procedural” rights found in the Bill of Rights.  Sure, habeas corpus had been waived in wartime before, but it seemed to me that waiving it here reduced us to the terrorists’ level.  Besides, since acts of terrorism were crimes, why not prosecute them?  I refused to work on those cases.

With the Abu Ghraib pictures, my disappointment turned to rage.  The America I believed in didn’t torture people.

I couldn’t avoid GWOT work.  I was forced to read reams of allegations of torture, sexual abuse, and cover-ups in our war zones to give the White House a heads-up in case any of made it into the news cycle.

I was so mad that I voted for Kerry out of spite.

How I Learned to Start Worrying

I might still have stuck it out as a frustrated liberal Republican, knowing that the wealthy business core of the party still pulled a few strings and people like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe remained in the Senate — if only because the idea of voting for Democrats by choice made me feel uncomfortable.  (It would have been so… gauche.)  Then came Hurricane Katrina.  In New Orleans, I learned that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that was flawed but my worldview itself.

I had fallen in love with New Orleans during a post-law-school year spent in Louisiana clerking for a federal judge, and the Bush administration’s callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart.  I wanted to help out, but I didn’t fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed — until FEMA asked federal employees to volunteer to help.  I jumped at the chance.

Soon, I was involved with a task force trying to rebuild (and reform) the city’s criminal justice system.  Growing up hating racism, I was appalled but not very surprised to find overt racism and the obvious use of racist code words by officials in the Deep South.

Then something tiny happened that pried open my eyes to the less obvious forms of racism and the hurdles the poor face when they try to climb the economic ladder.  It happened on an official visit to a school in a suburb of New Orleans that served kids who had gotten kicked out of every other school around.  I was investigating what types of services were available to the young people who were showing up in juvenile hall and seemed to be headed toward the proverbial life of crime.

My tour guide mentioned that parents were required to participate in some school programs.  One of these was a field trip to a sit-down restaurant.

This stopped me in my tracks.  I thought: What kind of a lame field trip is that?

It turned out that none of the families had ever been to a sit-down restaurant before.  The teachers had to instruct parents and students alike how to order off a menu, how to calculate the tip.

I was stunned.

Starting To See

That night, I told my roommates about the crazy thing I had heard that day.  Apparently there were people out there who had never been to something as basic as a real restaurant.  Who knew?

One of my roommates wasn’t surprised.  He worked at a local bank branch that required two forms of ID to open an account.  Lots of people came in who had only one or none at all.

I was flooded with questions: There are adults who have no ID?  And no bank accounts?  Who are these people?  How do they vote?  How do they live?  Is there an entire off-the-grid alternate universe out there?

From then on, I started to notice a lot more reality.  I noticed that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently in subtle as well as not-so-subtle ways, and that many of the people who were getting swept up by the system came from this underclass that I knew so little about.  Lingering for months in lock-up for misdemeanors, getting pressed against the hood and frisked during routine traffic stops, being pulled over in white neighborhoods for “driving while black”: these are things that never happen to people in my world.  Not having experienced it, I had always assumed that government force was only used against guilty people.  (Maybe that’s why we middle-class white people collectively freak out at TSA airport pat-downs.)

I dove into the research literature to try to figure out what was going on.  It turned out that everything I was “discovering” had been hiding in plain sight and had been named: aversive racism, institutional racism, disparate impact and disparate treatment, structural poverty, neighborhood redlining, the “trial tax,” the “poverty tax,” and on and on.  Having grown up obsessed with race (welfare and affirmative action were our bêtes noirs), I wondered why I had never heard of any of these concepts.

Was it to protect our Republican version of “individual responsibility”?  That notion is fundamental to the liberal Republican worldview. “Bootstrapping” and “equality of opportunity, not outcomes” make perfect sense if you assume, as I did, that people who hadn’t risen into my world simply hadn’t worked hard enough, or wanted it badly enough, or had simply failed.  But I had assumed that bootstrapping required about as much as it took to get yourself promoted from junior varsity to varsity.  It turns out that it’s more like pulling yourself up from tee-ball to the World Series.  Sure, some people do it, but they’re the exceptions, the outliers, the Olympians.

The enormity of the advantages I had always enjoyed started to truly sink in.  Everyone begins life thinking that his or her normal is the normal.  For the first time, I found myself paying attention to broken eggs rather than making omelets.  Up until then, I hadn’t really seen most Americans as living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people.  My values shifted — from an individualistic celebration of success (that involved dividing the world into the morally deserving and the undeserving) to an interest in people as people.

How I Learned to Stop Loving the Bombs

In order to learn more — and to secure my membership in what Karl Rove sneeringly called the “reality-based community” — I joined a social science research institute.  There I was slowly disabused of layer after layer of myth and received wisdom, and it hurt.  Perhaps nothing hurt more than to see just how far my patriotic, Republican conception of U.S. martial power — what it’s for, how it’s used — diverged from the reality of our wars.

Lots of Republicans grow up hawks.  I certainly did.  My sense of what it meant to be an American was linked to my belief that from 1776 to WWII, and even from the 1991 Gulf War to Kosovo and Afghanistan, the American military had been dedicated to birthing freedom and democracy in the world, while dispensing a tough and precise global justice.

To me, military service represented the perfect combination of public service, honor, heroism, glory, promotion, meaning, and coolness.  As a child, I couldn’t get enough of the military: toys and models, movies and cartoons, fat books with technical pictures of manly fighter planes and ships and submarines.  We went to air shows whenever we could, and with the advent of cable, I begged my parents to sign up so that the Discovery Channel could bring those shows right into our den.  Just after we got it, the first Gulf War kicked off, and CNN provided my afterschool entertainment for weeks.

As I got older, I studied Civil War military history and memory.  (I would eventually edit a book of letters by Union Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.)  I thought I knew a lot about war; even if Sherman was right that “war is hell,” it was frequently necessary, we did it well, and — whatever those misinformed peaceniks said — we made the world a better place.

But then I went to a war zone.

I was deployed to Baghdad as part of a team of RAND Corporation researchers to help the detainee operations command figure out several thorny policy issues.  My task was to figure out why we were sort-of-protecting and sort-of-detaining anIranian dissident group on Washington’s terrorist list.

It got ugly fast.  Just after my first meal on base, there was a rumble of explosions, and an alarm started screaming INCOMING! INCOMING! INCOMING!  Two people were killed and dozens injured, right outside the chow hall where I had been standing minutes earlier.

This was the “surge” period in 2007 when, I was told, insurgent attacks came less frequently than before, but the sounds of war seemed constant to me.  The rat-tat-tat of small arms fire just across the “wire.”  Controlled detonations of insurgent duds.  Dual patrolling Blackhawks overhead. And every few mornings, a fresh rain of insurgent rockets and mortars.

Always alert, always nervous, I was only in Iraq for three and a half weeks, and never close to actual combat; and yet the experience gave me many of the symptoms of PTSD.  It turns out that it doesn’t take much.

That made me wonder how the Iraqis took it.  From overhead I saw that the once teeming city of Baghdad was now a desert of desolate neighborhoods and empty shopping streets, bomb craters in the middle of soccer fields and in the roofs of schools.  Millions displaced.

Our nation-building efforts reeked of post-Katrina organizational incompetence.  People were assigned the wrong roles — “Why am I building a radio station?  This isn’t what I do.  I blow things up…” — and given no advance training or guidance.  Outgoing leaders didn’t overlap with their successors, so what they had learned would be lost, leaving each wheel to be partially reinvented again.  Precious few contracts went to Iraqis.  It was driving people out of our military.

This incompetence had profound human costs.  Of the 26,000 people we were detaining in Iraq, as many as two-thirds were innocent — wrong place, wrong time — or, poor and desperate, had worked with insurgent groups for cash, not out of an ideological commitment.  Aware of this, the military wanted to release thousands of them, but they didn’t know who was who; they only knew that being detained and interrogated made even the innocents dangerously angry.  That anger trickled down to family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances.  It was about as good an in-kind donation as the U.S. could have made to insurgent recruitment — aside from invading in the first place.

So much for surgical precision and winning hearts and minds.  I had grown up believing that we were more careful in our use of force, that we only punished those who deserved punishment.  But in just a few weeks in Iraq, it became apparent that what we were doing to the Iraqis, as well as to our own people, was inexcusable.

Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn’t aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology.  Then again, no one wants to feel like a bad person, and there’s no need to apologize if you are oblivious to the harms done in your name — calling the occasional ones you notice collateral damage (“stuff happens”) — or if you believe that American force is always applied righteously in a world that is justly divided into winners and losers.

A Painful Transition

An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion.  I think I finally understand what it means.  We see different realities, different worlds.  If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren’t talking about the same things.  I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.

My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into “creat[ing] our own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains why study after study shows — examples here, here, and here– that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

Waking up to a fuller spectrum of reality has proved long and painful.  I had to question all my assumptions, unlearn so much of what I had learned.  I came to understand why we Republicans thought people on the Left always seemed to be screeching angrily (because we refused to open our eyes to the damage we caused or blamed the victims) and why they never seemed to have any solutions to offer (because those weren’t mentioned in the media we read or watched).

My transition has significantly strained my relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues.  It is deeply upsetting to walk on thin ice where there used to be solid, common ground.  I wish they, too, would come to see a fuller spectrum of reality, but I know from experience how hard that can be when your worldview won’t let you.

No one wants to feel like a dupe.  It is embarrassing to come out in public and admit that I was so miseducated when so much reality is out there in plain sight in neighborhoods I avoided, in journals I hadn’t heard of, in books by authors I had refused to read.  (So I take courage from the people who have done so before me like Andrew Bacevich.)

Many people see the wider spectrum of reality because they grew up on the receiving end.  As a retired African-American general in the Marine Corps said to me after I told him my story, “No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man.”

Others do because they grew up in families that simply got it.  I married a woman who grew up in such a family, for whom all of my hard-earned, painful “discoveries” are old news.  Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she gives me a predictable series of looks.  The first one more or less says, “Duh, obviously.”  The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview.  The third is concerned: “Do people actually think that?”

Yes, they do.

Jeremiah Goulka writes about American politics and culture.  His most recent work has been published in the American Prospect and Salon.  He was formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, a recovery worker in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice.  He lives in Washington, D.C. You can follow him on Twitter @jeremiahgoulka or contact him at jeremiah@jeremiahgoulka.com.  His website is jeremiahgoulka.com. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Goulka discusses his political journey, click here or download it to your iPod here.

Copyright 2012 Jeremiah Goulka

 The Political Awakening of a Republican: ‘I Had Viewed Whole Swaths of the Country and the World as Second-Class People’ | Alternet.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Biden Still Waiting To Be Told Where Convention Is : The New Yorker


 

The Borowitz Report

 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2012

BIDEN STILL WAITING TO BE TOLD WHERE CONVENTION IS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

map-465.jpg

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Vice President Joe Biden said today that he “can’t wait” to deliver his speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but that he still has not been told where the gathering will take place.

“I guess I could Google it,” he said, “but my Internet stopped working a few weeks ago, and I’ve had a heck of a time getting it fixed.”

Mr. Biden said he expects someone to tell him the details about the convention “any day now,” but, in the meantime, he is working on his Convention speech, which he guarantees “is going to blow people away.”

“I was all set to read from a prepared text, but then Clint Eastwood’s thing really raised the bar,” he said. “I’m seeing this Convention as a chance to showcase my amazing improv chops.”

 Biden Still Waiting To Be Told Where Convention Is : The New Yorker.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Romney’s Campaign Strategy: Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More — Can Democracy Survive with 0% Media Accountability? | Alternet


 

Romney’s Campaign Strategy: Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More — Can Democracy Survive with 0% Media Accountability?

 

The Romney camp is boldly lying because they are making a calculation that it will work! We better hope it doesn’t.

 

 

The Romney campaign has turned to a strategy of swamping the public with flat-out, blatant lies, one after another, again and again, endlessly and lavishly repeated. They do this because they are making a calculation that it will work! So what is going on? And can democracy survive this assault?

The Growing List Of Lies

This week’s lie is the “Obama gutted welfare reform” nonsense. See Bill Scher’s must-read response, Romney’s Welfare Lie: A Betrayal Of Conservatism. The reporting conveys the Romney message, like this: Romney accuses Obama of dismantling welfare reform. The lie is driven home by a massive $$-driven carpet bombing of ads.

The next-most recent lies was the “Obama is trying to keep military families from voting” lie. This lie, repeated over and over, coordinated with outside groups, reinforces the “Democrats are anti-military” narrative.

Before that was the “You didn’t build that” lie, where the Romney campaigndoctored audio to make it sound as though President Obama said something he didn’t say. (And got away with it.) This lie, repeated over and over, reinforces the “Democrats are anti-business” narrative.

This one on welfare reinforces the “Democrats take your money and give it to black people” narrative. “We will end a culture of dependency and restore a culture of good, hard work,” said Romney, promising to make them work good and hard.

Rachel Maddow’s blog has been keeping track of the Romney lies, and it is a loooooong list.

How It Is Done

Here is how it works. Each lie is developed in the right’s machine, using something currently in the news to reinforce an ongoing narrative about “liberals.” The lie percolates up through a well-worn process where the germ of the story is planted in smaller outlets, and variations of it are tried out until one seems to resonate. Next, larger right-wing media operations pick up the developed “story” and drive it further. It gets amplified on the radio, FOX News and the right’s newspapers. Finally the corporate media takes it out to more and more people, covering themselves with the claim they are just “reporting” on a “story” that is “already out there.”

One way or another the lie is repeated and repeated and repeated (and repeated) in various forms through various channels that reach various target groups, until it becomes a “truth.” Once it has become a “truth” the Romney campaign uses this “truth” to claim Democrats and President Obama are harming the country.

The Solyndra story is a good example. The right developed a lie about “cronyism,” claiming that a Democratic donor is “tied to” solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra because a foundation with his name on it was an investor in the company. Because a foundation was the investor there was no possibility for the donor to benefit. But that doesn’t matter, they used this “tie” to spread a lie the Obama administration was steering money into someone’s pocket, and they repeated it and repeated it and repeated it.

After months of repetition of this lie, the Romney campaign understood that the lie has become a “truth,” and is using that “truth” themselves in campaign ads and Romney’s stump speech! Romney talks about “cronyism” in the Obama administration, understanding that much of the public now believes this is established fact.

The Calculation

The Romney campaign is limiting media access to the candidate and offering little in the way of substantive policy proposals. They are instead using press releases, advertisements, message-trained surrogates, cooperative media like FOX, Drudge, talk radio, allied newspapers and the right’s blogosphere, while coordinating with massively-funded outside groups like Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation and others.

This is a key thing to get, the Romney campaign believes that they can win this election using lies and propaganda as “truths” to drive their campaign story. They are making the calculation that the right’s media machine has become sufficiently powerful for their version of reality to reach enough of the public, and that it is sticking in their minds as “truths!”

They are also making the calculation — so far validated by the media response — that there will be little if any pushback from “mainstream” media. They trust that the media will look the other way, report lies as “one side says X, the other says Y,” tell the public “both sides do it,” and say this is just par for the course.

But if there is media resistance, they are calculating that the right’s own media power can override any pushback that might come. They might also believe they can turn media resistance to their advantage. Decades have been spent convincing their followers to see potentially objective information sources as “the liberal media,” enemy of conservatism, and any pushback for lying could just increase support for their campaign.

So the Romney campaign, like the recent Bush administration, are conscious that they do not need to work with facts. Instead they believe they can “create truth” through the manipulation of perception. This is hardly new in Repubican circles. The phrase “reality-based community” came out of the previous Republican administration’s calculations of what the public will and won’t learn about. This famous quote from Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush by Ron Suskind, explains,

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

What Does The Public “Know?”

If you are reading this you are likely very well-informed. You pay attention to the mainstream news, as well as read various progressive sources. But much of the public is not very well-informed, and faces the problem of not knowing what sources to trust. Subjected to a constant battering of corporate/conservative propaganda and disinformation, they are busy, and not ready or able to do the extensive research needed to make informed decisions.

Progressives and “liberals” try to solve this problem by trying to help people get informed. Conservatives understand this and try to use it to their advantage, spreading self-serving misinformation.

The well-funded propagandists study and understand the shorthand methods people use to determine what to believe. This is the reason for the ongoing attacks on the credibility of what would normally be seen as trustworthy sources, like PBS, NPR and what the rest of what has been disparaged for decades as “the liberal media.” This is also the reason for the establishment of so many corporate-funded conservative “institutes” and other academic and authoritative-sounding organizations that issue “studies” and “reports” that always echo the corporate-conservative positions.

The “mainstream” corporate media has also undergone a change over recent decades. Many outlets now see themselves as businesses with a product that has to appeal to “the market” to make money. They no longer see their mission to be informing the public so citizens have the information that is needed to function in a democracy, but instead as “maximizing shareholder return,” by “driving traffic” and whatever else it takes to sell advertising. And many people working as “journalists” understand that advancing their own careers means not making waves by being perceived as “leftist” or “anti-business.”

The Test

Steve Benen calls this a “test for the political world,” writing,

How are we to respond to a campaign that deliberately deceives the public without shame? This lie about welfare policy comes on the heels of Romney’s lie about voting rights in Ohio, which came on the heels of Romney’s lies about the economy; which came on the heels of Romney’s lies about health care; which came on the heels of Romney’s lies about taxes.

The Republican nominee for president is working under the assumption that he can make transparently false claims, in writing and in campaign advertising, with impunity. Romney is convinced that there are no consequences for breathtaking dishonesty.

The test, then, comes down to a simple question: is he right?

This is a test for the political world, as well as a challenge to the viability of our democratic system. We can expect this to continue and accelerate until election day, driven by hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaires and their huge corporations. The question is, will enough of our misinformed public be tricked by the lies? If this succeeds, what kind of country will we become? What will be left?

 Romney’s Campaign Strategy: Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More — Can Democracy Survive with 0% Media Accountability? | Alternet.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Bachmann Claims White House Has Links to Extremist Group Called Democrats : The New Yorker


 

JULY 19, 2012

BACHMANN CLAIMS WHITE HOUSE HAS LINKS TO EXTREMIST GROUP CALLED DEMOCRATS

Posted by Andy Borowitz

131728232.jpg

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Representative Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) stirred controversy today by claiming that several key members of the Obama Administration had links to a shadowy extremist group called the Democratic Party.

While Representative Bachmann produced no evidence to back up her charges, she said she had proof that “members of this sinister cabal have infested the highest echelons of our government to take away our guns and replace them with gay health care.”

Representative Bachmann said that the member of the Administration with the closest ties to the organization is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “I have it on good authority that she is related to a former leader of the group.”

The Minnesota Congressperson’s shocking accusations drew widespread calls for her to back down, from such disparate quarters as Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) and the National Institute of Mental Health.

“Congresswoman Bachmann’s comments are baseless, irresponsible, and beneath contempt,” said Senator McCain. “Having said that, I think I would have chosen her as my running mate over Mitt Romney.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner said that he now regretted making Representative Bachmann a member of the Intelligence Committee, calling that decision “an example of a good-natured prank that went too far.”

Despite the controversy swirling around her, however, Representative Bachmann refused to cave: “I don’t know the meaning of the word surrender. Also, science, math, apple, and cat.”

 Bachmann Claims White House Has Links to Extremist Group Called Democrats : The New Yorker.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Can Mitt win doing nothing? – Opening Shot – Salon.com


Can Mitt win doing nothing?

Romney is testing whether a vague campaign can unseat an incumbent when the economy is rotten

 

Can Mitt win doing nothing?

FILE – In this June 13, 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) (Credit: AP)

The results of a focus group should be taken with a grain of salt, but they also can be useful in understanding the emotions behind mass opinion.

Last week, a focus group of undecided female voters in Nevada commissioned by Wal-Mart provided encouragement for President Obama, with several participants suggesting he hadn’t had enough time to address the massive problems he inherited – a sentiment that his reelection hopes probably depend on. Now comes a new one from veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart, which included 12 undecided voters in Colorado, 10 of whom supported Obama in 2008. This one is more ominous for the president.

According to Hart’s memo, only four of Obama’s 10 original supporters are still strongly committed to him. Three of the potential defectors are easily explained – two Republicans who contributed to the landslide scale of his ’08 win and a Mormon who feels a religious kinship with Mitt Romney. But the other three are “philosophically in [Obama’s] corner but disappointed in his leadership and, quite frankly, in the campaign for re-election.”

Hart contends that they’re going wobbly because Obama has offered “no road map, no program, and no conviction of where [he] wants to lead the country.” There absolutely may be something to this, although it’s also fair to wonder if swing voters like these are actually just looking for a rationalization to turn on Obama – that their intense economic anxiety makes them prone to blame the president and that if he were to lay out a bold and dramatic road map, they’d simply find another reason to deem him a disappointment.

This is the phenomenon on which Romney’s strategy relies. And Hart’s focus group offers a hint of just how low the bar might be for the presumptive GOP nominee. According to the memo, participants see Romney as a “stiff and formal” “stick figure” and don’t associate him with any specific policy ideas. “Few would opt to go to a ballgame with him over Obama,” Hart writes, “and those who WOULD go with Romney are looking for free food and drink.” And yet he might end up winning two-thirds of the votes of this group of undecided swing state voters.

In a way, the Romney campaign is a grand-scale political science experiment. When economic anxiety and pessimism are rampant, swing voters tend to break against the incumbent president. By running an intentionally vague and generic campaign – one that apparently considers the idea of laying out specific and coherent policy ideas an unacceptable political risk – Romney is calculating that it really doesn’t take anything more than a 98.6 degree body temperature for a challenger to succeed in a climate like this. Obama, by contrast, needs these voters to consider context – the scale of the mess he inherited, which party made that mess, how Republicans in Congress have obstructed his agenda, what Romney is (and isn’t) offering.

It’s just one piece of evidence, but the Colorado focus group is a reminder that Romney has the easier task. That doesn’t mean he’s going to win, but by doing almost nothing, he’s going to at least come close.

 Can Mitt win doing nothing? – Opening Shot – Salon.com.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers

%d bloggers like this: