The collective psyche of a nation, like the psyche of individual human beings, has many facets, and I'm fascinated by that. But much of my fascination is laced with angst because much of the pain and suffering that exists in this country is self-inflicted and totally unecessary. It almost seems like we're a nation of masochists. I'm not saying that we're all masochists but there is an alarmingly significant number of people who act and vote against their own self interest.
It's often clear what motivates the decision-makers, ie. politicians and bureaucrats, and those that have the greatest influence on the decision makers, the rich and powerful. The wealthy want to attain greater wealth and they try to do so by influencing politicians, either directly, through lobbyists or just by supporting certain politicians and policies, so that laws and public policy favors them and their objectives as much as possible. I don't mean that all wealthy people do that. Some get rich mostly by working hard and being smart. Some inherited their wealth and maintain or increase it by investing wisely. But there is a significant number of wealthy and powerful people, and it doesn't take many to corrupt the system, whose will is reflected in public policy in a way that is highly disproportionate with and detrimental to the needs of the rest of society, and they don't seem to care.
The vast majority of the people in this country are wage earners. Most people can't afford to miss one paycheck. And virtually everyone is in debt. The reason so many people are in debt is because things have reached such a state that often it's the only way to achieve middle class status. Rampant, unbridled materialism fueled by easy credit—that's the recipe for a debt laden nation.
Historically, being in the middle class was considered to be a pretty comfortable position in American society. There was a time when a person or family could achieve middle class status without going into the staggering debt that is so common today. Moreover, middle class households only needed one breadwinner. Today they generally need two and they most likely work more hours to achieve the same standard of living as their middle class predecessors. Their is data that shows that over the past several decades productivity and corporate profits have increased while real income has remained stagnant.
The formula today for achieving middle class status is hard work (maybe two jobs) and lots of debt. And who benefits the most economically by this set up? Could it be the wealthy few who have the most influence on economic policy? You know, the ones who were able to convince a very significant number of Americans over the past several decades that the more the tax code and economic policy favors them the more their wealth will trickle down to us. The same ones who argued that they are the job creators and that somehow without them no one would be working at all. Could it be the triumvirate of investment banks, politicians and the investment class that has been at the root of all this income disparity? What a perfect arrangement for the already wealthy: lower taxes and a huge number of Americans in debt. Heavy debt and economic desperation creates a more malleable workforce while financial institutions become a very attractive investment opportunity for the investor class.
So, what we've got is a relatively small group of people who have the economic wherewithal to shape economic policy. Financial institutions and multinational corporations influence politicians through their lobbyists. Their economic power allows them to fund political campaigns and use the media extensively to promote their interests. Some corporations even own media outlets. Then there are private investors who vote, invest and make political contributions to keep the money flowing in their direction. Even though economic policy, including the tax code, over the past several decades has harmed the middle class, its voting patterns have done little or nothing to remedy the situation.
Why has it been possible for the wealthy and powerful few to get so many people to vote against their own interests? Books can and have been written to answer that question. But the short answer is that through legalized bribery between lobbyists and legislators, the rules of the game have been rigged in favor of the rich and powerful while average Americans have been asleep at the switch numbing their minds with new gadgets, "reality" TV, mass quantities of junk food, a sense of prosperity, albeit false, made possible by easy credit and a whole array of drugs and alcohol, making them easy prey to predatory elements.
So, a significant number of American's have been voting and acting against their own self interest and I would say that the start of this trend goes back to the so-called Reagan revolution, over three decades ago. Since then the Republican party has constantly promoted policies that have hurt average Americans trying to achieve or maintain middle class status. Not that the Democratic party deserves no criticism but we're pretty much caught in binary system: 0 = Republican policy which offers no support for the middle class and every advantage to the rich and powerful; 1 = Democratic policy which doesn't fight hard enough but at least opens the way for some support of the middle class.
No honest person can compare Republican policy with Democratic policy over the past three decades and come to the conclusion that Republican policy has benefitted the middle class. In fact, the neo-cons have been quite transparent in their intention to make the rich richer using their smoke and mirrors arguments of trickle down economics to justify it. But not only that, many prominent Republicans have spoken openly about destroying the New Deal, arguably a set of government policies that has helped the middle class more than any other in our history. Public education, social security, medicare and every other social program has also been in their crosshairs. Their argument is that it's a question of economic freedom when what it really is is a greedy attempt to hoard as big a piece of the economic pie as possible.
So it is my contention that the first step towards re-establishing the strength of the middle class is to stop voting, under most circumstances, for Republicans while we vote for Democrats and hold their feet to the fire. For more moderate conservatives this could be a temporary measure until the out of whack status quo is brought more in line with a fair set of economic rules. Then we can get back at least to a political discourse where both sides agree that a healthy America means having a healthy middle class and policy should be set accordingly. At that point we can have a more rational discussion and engage in more meaningful political battles about how to achieve that. So why have Americans been supporting economic policy that has gone against their own self interest?
The reasons are myriad. One book that explains it quite well is What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank. Part of it has been the neo-con's ongoing effort to understate and even denigrate the importance of government policy as it relates to the well-being of society as a whole. There has been a gross undervaluation of a system in which a reasonable number of people have a reasonable degree of access to the things in a modern society that will bring them a reasonable standard of living and a chance at prosperity—things like education, health care, jobs that provide a living wage, decent food and shelter. Without this, the overall health of society suffers and when the degree of suffering becomes too great, even the wealthiest among us aren't fully insulated from the suffering.
The crux of the Republican message has been: average Americans have had it too good and liberal economic policy that has helped to bring about a thriving middle class has become an obstacle for people at the top to increase their wealth. So the Republican party has indeed engaged in a sophisticated form of messaging designed to get citizens to undervalue the importance of government as it relates to economic policy. They've done it by using the same principles and techniques used by the most successful advertising firms of Madison Avenue along with a constant flow of lies, distortion of facts and hyperbole. This kind of anti-government rhetoric began in earnest starting with President Reagan's assertion that government doesn't solve problems; government IS the problem. And so began the insidious onslaught against the very institution, our institution, that can most effectively even the playing field of economic activity.
Daniel DeCamp
Next:
Why do Republicans fight so hard for the concept of limited government when it comes to laws and policies that have to do with the distribution of wealth but have no qualms about resorting to the heavy hand of government when it comes to personal choices such as safe abortions, contraceptives and gay marriage?
Friday, October 13, 2017
Ray Rice, Violence, the NFL and Us
Ray Rice's assault against his wife was disturbing and inexcusable and his behavior should be condemned, as it has been. He should be ashamed and humbly commit to changing his ways.
Of all the flaws we can have as human beings, resorting to physical violence to solve our differences is about as bad as it gets. We should strive to be a civilized society, which doesn't mean cold-cocking someone any time they piss you off.
But all that doesn't necessarily mean Rice should lose his livelihood forever. Nobody is perfect and everybody should have a chance at redemption. Lessons must be learned from this whole mess and the right punishment needs to be applied.
Everyone, whatever their shortcomings, should be able to make an honest living doing what they do best, whether it's the guy who sells you your gas and cigarettes at the convenience store or your mailman. Whatever you think about football and professional sports in general, what Ray Rice does best is run with a football. Never letting him do that again would not serve the greater good. Using his privileged position as a pro athlete to send a positive message could.
The Ravens should have acted quickly and immediately when they saw the video tape instead of trying to cover it up. An indefinite suspension was a good first step. But now what?
Should the Ravens fire Rice or keep him? Do they want him to be a part of their team or not?
And if they do keep him, what kind of disciplinary action should be applied? How about a one-year suspension without pay and completing some kind of rehabilitation program? Maybe doing community service talking to young people about how messed up his behavior was.
The Raven's response will tell us a lot about who they are as an organization. Of course, the NFL should have the last word. It's their league. From the start, neither the Ravens nor the NFL have handled the Ray Rice thing correctly. Covering up bad behavior is never the right way to go and it appears that's what they both tried to do.
Daniel DeCamp
Of all the flaws we can have as human beings, resorting to physical violence to solve our differences is about as bad as it gets. We should strive to be a civilized society, which doesn't mean cold-cocking someone any time they piss you off.
But all that doesn't necessarily mean Rice should lose his livelihood forever. Nobody is perfect and everybody should have a chance at redemption. Lessons must be learned from this whole mess and the right punishment needs to be applied.
Everyone, whatever their shortcomings, should be able to make an honest living doing what they do best, whether it's the guy who sells you your gas and cigarettes at the convenience store or your mailman. Whatever you think about football and professional sports in general, what Ray Rice does best is run with a football. Never letting him do that again would not serve the greater good. Using his privileged position as a pro athlete to send a positive message could.
The Ravens should have acted quickly and immediately when they saw the video tape instead of trying to cover it up. An indefinite suspension was a good first step. But now what?
Should the Ravens fire Rice or keep him? Do they want him to be a part of their team or not?
And if they do keep him, what kind of disciplinary action should be applied? How about a one-year suspension without pay and completing some kind of rehabilitation program? Maybe doing community service talking to young people about how messed up his behavior was.
The Raven's response will tell us a lot about who they are as an organization. Of course, the NFL should have the last word. It's their league. From the start, neither the Ravens nor the NFL have handled the Ray Rice thing correctly. Covering up bad behavior is never the right way to go and it appears that's what they both tried to do.
Daniel DeCamp
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Who Are We?
Lately I find myself thinking more about social philosophy than I do politics or public policy. I guess that's because I think if we as a nation can come to some consensus on how we want to define ourselves as a society, then much of the policy will take care of itself. In other words, I think that in order to solve many of our problems we must take an honest look at who we are as a nation and who we want to be. We as citizens need to understand our role in a democratic society as well as how our government works so we can decide what we want its role to be.
There needs to be a greater awareness of our history and how our government works and for this to happen we need to work on improving our education system. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to promote exactly the opposite because they, who are always looking for gaining the upper hand in their quest to dominate others, believe in a society of competition rather than one of cooperation. Their anti-government, get-the-government-out-of-everything, let-the-private-sector-do-it-all mentality is the perfect self-serving construct for keeping the rich rich and the powerful powerful, especially with respect to education.
Although they'll argue the contrary, there's no question in my mind, or in the mind of any rational thinker, that privatizing education and leaving it to the whims of a market economy would result in less access to education for a greater number of people. That's a perfect arrangement for them: less government spending on education means, in their warped way of thinking, more money for the private sector, believing that all money that goes to the public sector constitutes a net loss to them. Few admit to the other motive for destroying public education which is to have greater control of a dumbed-down populace and less dissent against the rigged system they paid for.
We need to understand that it's not always a good idea to try to have every moral issue reflected in our laws. In fact, the attempt to control certain kinds of behavior through laws often results in other kinds of harmful behavior, especially when we try to outlaw certain activities that are well established in our society, even though they are of questionable social or moral value. Look at the consumption of drugs and alcohol. Look at abortion. These are human activities that have been going on for a long long time. It is delusional to believe that these activities can be stamped out entirely because of a law to prohibit them; and I would argue it is not constructive to even try. Instead, we come to terms that some behavior will not be eliminated through legislation and we should make laws that are designed to mitigate the negative effects that certain activities have on society as a whole. That is already done to some extent with alcohol. It is not illegal across the board but through laws, it has age limits, restrictions on blood alcohol levels for driving, advertising restrictions, special taxes, etc. So, although we as a society recognize that the use of alcohol can cause harm and there should be some coercive measures to control and mitigate its harmful effects, we also recognize that outlawing it outright would be an unnecessary infringement on the freedom of those who drink responsibly and would give rise to other harmful things like a black market and consequently other more serious crimes, as we learned during prohibition.
More common sense is needed to approach our common needs and problems. Religious dogma can often translate into better behavior and a potentially better society but it is often too rigid to be reflected in our laws. And if it were, it would often cause more harmful consequences than the original harm it tries to eliminate. Look at some isolated parts of the muslim world: stoning for adultery. Cutting off of limbs for theft. Is this a good way to deal with such things? Look at our society. If many Christians had their way abortion would be outlawed. Let's look at the consequences of that. It might dissuade some women from having one, but many more would have them anyway and it would be done with much greater risk to them because they would be done secretly and illegally. And what social good would be served if more women die or are harmed because of an absolute moral opinion about abortion that disallows others to have the free will to follow their own moral compass. Let's not fail to recognize either that there are parameters that govern the legality of abortion; namely that it would be legal up until the 25th week of gestation based on the scientifically recognized fact that that is the point at which a fetus could possibly survive outside the womb and therefore is not entirely dependent on the biological system of the mother. Most people believe that such a restriction on abortion is reasonable.
There must be as much wariness about the power of individual citizens and corporations as there has been about the government. Please recognize that much of the anti-government rhetoric we hear is primarily an attempt by the powerful few to control the government and affect public policy and legislation as much as possible so they can eliminate government "interference" and become the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. The government is only as good as how much the will of the people is reflected in its laws and policies and if only a few people are zealously participating in the democratic process it will serve only a few people. And if those few people tend to be at the top of the economic heap then those are the people whose interests are most likely being served.
One of the biggest issues that need to be solved is our energy needs. This is not a right-left issue; or it shouldn't be. There is no question that our standard of living and way of life is greatly dependent on the use of fossil fuels. We need something to fuel the vehicles we use to get to our jobs and to take care of other matters in our lives. We need electricity to run our devices as well as fuel for transportation and to heat our homes. But when the government ignores better systems that would promote the greater good for the sake of the status quo and fails to legislate accordingly, then democracy is not living up to its ideals.
That's all for now. Comments are welcome!
There needs to be a greater awareness of our history and how our government works and for this to happen we need to work on improving our education system. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to promote exactly the opposite because they, who are always looking for gaining the upper hand in their quest to dominate others, believe in a society of competition rather than one of cooperation. Their anti-government, get-the-government-out-of-everything, let-the-private-sector-do-it-all mentality is the perfect self-serving construct for keeping the rich rich and the powerful powerful, especially with respect to education.
Although they'll argue the contrary, there's no question in my mind, or in the mind of any rational thinker, that privatizing education and leaving it to the whims of a market economy would result in less access to education for a greater number of people. That's a perfect arrangement for them: less government spending on education means, in their warped way of thinking, more money for the private sector, believing that all money that goes to the public sector constitutes a net loss to them. Few admit to the other motive for destroying public education which is to have greater control of a dumbed-down populace and less dissent against the rigged system they paid for.
We need to understand that it's not always a good idea to try to have every moral issue reflected in our laws. In fact, the attempt to control certain kinds of behavior through laws often results in other kinds of harmful behavior, especially when we try to outlaw certain activities that are well established in our society, even though they are of questionable social or moral value. Look at the consumption of drugs and alcohol. Look at abortion. These are human activities that have been going on for a long long time. It is delusional to believe that these activities can be stamped out entirely because of a law to prohibit them; and I would argue it is not constructive to even try. Instead, we come to terms that some behavior will not be eliminated through legislation and we should make laws that are designed to mitigate the negative effects that certain activities have on society as a whole. That is already done to some extent with alcohol. It is not illegal across the board but through laws, it has age limits, restrictions on blood alcohol levels for driving, advertising restrictions, special taxes, etc. So, although we as a society recognize that the use of alcohol can cause harm and there should be some coercive measures to control and mitigate its harmful effects, we also recognize that outlawing it outright would be an unnecessary infringement on the freedom of those who drink responsibly and would give rise to other harmful things like a black market and consequently other more serious crimes, as we learned during prohibition.
More common sense is needed to approach our common needs and problems. Religious dogma can often translate into better behavior and a potentially better society but it is often too rigid to be reflected in our laws. And if it were, it would often cause more harmful consequences than the original harm it tries to eliminate. Look at some isolated parts of the muslim world: stoning for adultery. Cutting off of limbs for theft. Is this a good way to deal with such things? Look at our society. If many Christians had their way abortion would be outlawed. Let's look at the consequences of that. It might dissuade some women from having one, but many more would have them anyway and it would be done with much greater risk to them because they would be done secretly and illegally. And what social good would be served if more women die or are harmed because of an absolute moral opinion about abortion that disallows others to have the free will to follow their own moral compass. Let's not fail to recognize either that there are parameters that govern the legality of abortion; namely that it would be legal up until the 25th week of gestation based on the scientifically recognized fact that that is the point at which a fetus could possibly survive outside the womb and therefore is not entirely dependent on the biological system of the mother. Most people believe that such a restriction on abortion is reasonable.
There must be as much wariness about the power of individual citizens and corporations as there has been about the government. Please recognize that much of the anti-government rhetoric we hear is primarily an attempt by the powerful few to control the government and affect public policy and legislation as much as possible so they can eliminate government "interference" and become the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. The government is only as good as how much the will of the people is reflected in its laws and policies and if only a few people are zealously participating in the democratic process it will serve only a few people. And if those few people tend to be at the top of the economic heap then those are the people whose interests are most likely being served.
One of the biggest issues that need to be solved is our energy needs. This is not a right-left issue; or it shouldn't be. There is no question that our standard of living and way of life is greatly dependent on the use of fossil fuels. We need something to fuel the vehicles we use to get to our jobs and to take care of other matters in our lives. We need electricity to run our devices as well as fuel for transportation and to heat our homes. But when the government ignores better systems that would promote the greater good for the sake of the status quo and fails to legislate accordingly, then democracy is not living up to its ideals.
That's all for now. Comments are welcome!
Monday, October 9, 2017
Monday, July 28, 2014
Trying to Live Up to the Name of this Blog Is Hard
This heretofore unpublished blog post was written back on 7/28/14, over three years ago, but I think the ideas are as valid today, maybe more so, as then.
I have to admit, living up to the name of my blog, civildiscourseplease.blogspot.com, is sometimes quite difficult for me, but I'm going to keep trying. What I need to keep telling myself is that it is possible to express disagreement, and even disgust, with other opinions without the name-calling, gross exaggerations and excessive hyperbole that is so prevalent in our political discourse today. If we all did less of that and more rational analysis before we give our opinion we would have a much less divided nation and a better political system by which to solve our problems.
We need to do more communicating with one another and less pigeonholing of issues into the right versus left - conservative versus liberal dichotomy, which is in many ways a false one, at least, to the degree that it is emphasized and promoted by the provocateurs who use it for their own political and economic ends thereby creating a political divide that is often much greater in tone than it actually is in substance. And this is unfortunate because it obfuscates the real issues and causes harmful and unnecessary divisions in our society.
Yes, there is a lot of disagreement about the role of government in our lives and our role as citizens. But that doesn't mean that all opposing opinions are evil and need to be snuffed out by any means possible. Remember the communist witch hunt of Joseph McCarthy. Not a good chapter in our history.
The idea that it's okay to use any tactics possible to stop any contrary public policy or political movement is harmful to our country. And that's the crux of it right there. Too many Americans do too little thinking for themselves and allow themselves to be influenced by people who resort to intellectually dishonest tactics such as gross exaggerations, excessive hyperbole and blatant lies to promote their own political agenda or to fight against other political agendas and this creates distortions and divisions that harm our political process, which depends on a free flow of coherent and rational ideas.
The most prominent voices in politics have been, I believe, purposely and dangerously, through their lies and highly charged rhetoric creating a dangerously high degree of division among us in order to win their political battles. It is very harmful when the desire to achieve political goals sacrifices the unity and well-being of the nation. It's the old divide and conquer strategy and, unfortunately, it has been working.
What often occurs is not a robust debate specifically about the issues but rather histrionics based on which side is more or less virtuous and which side is the culprit for all our nation's ills. So once it is established who is on the "other" side, in other words, the non-virtuous side, any idea that comes out of that side can be automatically rejected. Once the "bad guy" label is pinned on someone or some group it's no longer necessary to listen to their ideas or opinions. This is bad for democracy and it's bad for this country, but it's something that is going on like perhaps never before.
One of the most striking examples of what I'm talking about was a statement I once heard from Rush Limbaugh in an interview on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren. He emphatically said, every problem in this country, without exception, is because of liberalism. This kind of talk doesn't even deserve a rebuttal because it is so extreme that it has no chance of being true. And, by the way, I would be equally as critical if the same statement were made about conservatism. But Limbaugh didn't qualify his statement in any way and he didn't say MANY or SOME of the problems in this country are because of liberalism. Nor was he intellectually honest and earnest enough to define liberalism and explain why he believed it has caused so many problems.
It is obvious he has an agenda, political and financial, and he promotes it in the most self-serving and intellectually lazy way possible. He doesn't bother to engage in rational analysis of issues to support his opinions. Instead he decides what sort of political outcome he wants and makes his arguments in order to achieve that outcome, with little or no regard for facts or logic. Most of his arguments seem to be based on his foregone conclusion that all liberalism is always a bad thing and all conservatism is always a good thing and the only thing there is to argue about is how to promote the good thing and destroy the bad thing, regardless of the harmful side effects these kind of tactics have on the democratic process and the nation as a whole. There is no sense of balance or moderation in anything this man says. In fact, he mocks the whole idea of moderation in the political arena. He is, indeed, proud of being an anti-moderate conservative.
None of this would bother me if it weren't for the fact that people like Limbaugh have such great influence on what people in this country think and how they vote. These extremists are harmful not only because of their political philosophy (not that they really have one), but because of the corruption they bring to the free marketplace of ideas and ultimately the political process.
I don't believe Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other prominent extremists are going to stop engaging in this type of political discourse any time soon because they are too heavily rewarded by the Republican party as well as their loyal listeners who keep coming back for that mind-numbing drug that constantly vilifies and scapegoats all things liberal and glorifies all things conservative.
In response, there are those on the left who, in order to even the score, do the same thing. Even the ones who try very hard to rely on facts and critical analysis on which to base their opinions, sometimes use excessive hyperbole and exaggeration to counter what comes out of the right wing propaganda machine. And, although it seems like a good way to fight back, they should stop it because it's not necessary. It is clear that Limbaugh and other extreme right wingers are out to destroy all the achievements of liberal public policy since the New Deal and are willing to use any means possible to do so.
Liberals should attack their ideas head on and defend their own achievements without using the handy name-calling, labeling and divide and conquer tactics the extreme right wingers so heavily rely on. I think the very tactics and strategy that has won the so-called conservative movement so much political success over the past several decades will ultimately be their undoing.
I have to admit, living up to the name of my blog, civildiscourseplease.blogspot.com, is sometimes quite difficult for me, but I'm going to keep trying. What I need to keep telling myself is that it is possible to express disagreement, and even disgust, with other opinions without the name-calling, gross exaggerations and excessive hyperbole that is so prevalent in our political discourse today. If we all did less of that and more rational analysis before we give our opinion we would have a much less divided nation and a better political system by which to solve our problems.
We need to do more communicating with one another and less pigeonholing of issues into the right versus left - conservative versus liberal dichotomy, which is in many ways a false one, at least, to the degree that it is emphasized and promoted by the provocateurs who use it for their own political and economic ends thereby creating a political divide that is often much greater in tone than it actually is in substance. And this is unfortunate because it obfuscates the real issues and causes harmful and unnecessary divisions in our society.
Yes, there is a lot of disagreement about the role of government in our lives and our role as citizens. But that doesn't mean that all opposing opinions are evil and need to be snuffed out by any means possible. Remember the communist witch hunt of Joseph McCarthy. Not a good chapter in our history.
The idea that it's okay to use any tactics possible to stop any contrary public policy or political movement is harmful to our country. And that's the crux of it right there. Too many Americans do too little thinking for themselves and allow themselves to be influenced by people who resort to intellectually dishonest tactics such as gross exaggerations, excessive hyperbole and blatant lies to promote their own political agenda or to fight against other political agendas and this creates distortions and divisions that harm our political process, which depends on a free flow of coherent and rational ideas.
The most prominent voices in politics have been, I believe, purposely and dangerously, through their lies and highly charged rhetoric creating a dangerously high degree of division among us in order to win their political battles. It is very harmful when the desire to achieve political goals sacrifices the unity and well-being of the nation. It's the old divide and conquer strategy and, unfortunately, it has been working.
What often occurs is not a robust debate specifically about the issues but rather histrionics based on which side is more or less virtuous and which side is the culprit for all our nation's ills. So once it is established who is on the "other" side, in other words, the non-virtuous side, any idea that comes out of that side can be automatically rejected. Once the "bad guy" label is pinned on someone or some group it's no longer necessary to listen to their ideas or opinions. This is bad for democracy and it's bad for this country, but it's something that is going on like perhaps never before.
One of the most striking examples of what I'm talking about was a statement I once heard from Rush Limbaugh in an interview on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren. He emphatically said, every problem in this country, without exception, is because of liberalism. This kind of talk doesn't even deserve a rebuttal because it is so extreme that it has no chance of being true. And, by the way, I would be equally as critical if the same statement were made about conservatism. But Limbaugh didn't qualify his statement in any way and he didn't say MANY or SOME of the problems in this country are because of liberalism. Nor was he intellectually honest and earnest enough to define liberalism and explain why he believed it has caused so many problems.
It is obvious he has an agenda, political and financial, and he promotes it in the most self-serving and intellectually lazy way possible. He doesn't bother to engage in rational analysis of issues to support his opinions. Instead he decides what sort of political outcome he wants and makes his arguments in order to achieve that outcome, with little or no regard for facts or logic. Most of his arguments seem to be based on his foregone conclusion that all liberalism is always a bad thing and all conservatism is always a good thing and the only thing there is to argue about is how to promote the good thing and destroy the bad thing, regardless of the harmful side effects these kind of tactics have on the democratic process and the nation as a whole. There is no sense of balance or moderation in anything this man says. In fact, he mocks the whole idea of moderation in the political arena. He is, indeed, proud of being an anti-moderate conservative.
None of this would bother me if it weren't for the fact that people like Limbaugh have such great influence on what people in this country think and how they vote. These extremists are harmful not only because of their political philosophy (not that they really have one), but because of the corruption they bring to the free marketplace of ideas and ultimately the political process.
I don't believe Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other prominent extremists are going to stop engaging in this type of political discourse any time soon because they are too heavily rewarded by the Republican party as well as their loyal listeners who keep coming back for that mind-numbing drug that constantly vilifies and scapegoats all things liberal and glorifies all things conservative.
In response, there are those on the left who, in order to even the score, do the same thing. Even the ones who try very hard to rely on facts and critical analysis on which to base their opinions, sometimes use excessive hyperbole and exaggeration to counter what comes out of the right wing propaganda machine. And, although it seems like a good way to fight back, they should stop it because it's not necessary. It is clear that Limbaugh and other extreme right wingers are out to destroy all the achievements of liberal public policy since the New Deal and are willing to use any means possible to do so.
Liberals should attack their ideas head on and defend their own achievements without using the handy name-calling, labeling and divide and conquer tactics the extreme right wingers so heavily rely on. I think the very tactics and strategy that has won the so-called conservative movement so much political success over the past several decades will ultimately be their undoing.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
More Dark Ages or a New Age of Enlightenment?
This is one of those moments in our history where we can choose to begin a new age full of hope, peace and prosperity or continue to let fear, hate and divisive politics retard our evolution as a society. The best way for us to prevail over those still clinging to the dark ages of America is to be more engaged in our political system and work to elect those that are more enlightened and better represent the more rational among us.
When I say dark ages, I'm referring to all the negative baggage from our past that too many of our citizens want to cling to. I'm talking about the racism, sexism and general intolerance that still exists and the feeling of entitlement by some groups to the exclusion of anyone unlike them. It's funny, we often talk about entitlement in a negative way as it relates to people who benefit from certain government programs. I'm referring to the entitlement that many Americans feel just because they have a certain skin color, follow a certain religion or come from a certain cultural lineage.
It's ironic and hypocritical that many people who see themselves as "true Americans" and have this sense of entitlement exercise the same intolerance and persecution towards other groups that caused their ancestors to come to this continent. Europeans can be thankful that it is us not they that have to deal with the religious fanaticism that's driving much of this political turmoil.
Daniel DeCamp
When I say dark ages, I'm referring to all the negative baggage from our past that too many of our citizens want to cling to. I'm talking about the racism, sexism and general intolerance that still exists and the feeling of entitlement by some groups to the exclusion of anyone unlike them. It's funny, we often talk about entitlement in a negative way as it relates to people who benefit from certain government programs. I'm referring to the entitlement that many Americans feel just because they have a certain skin color, follow a certain religion or come from a certain cultural lineage.
It's ironic and hypocritical that many people who see themselves as "true Americans" and have this sense of entitlement exercise the same intolerance and persecution towards other groups that caused their ancestors to come to this continent. Europeans can be thankful that it is us not they that have to deal with the religious fanaticism that's driving much of this political turmoil.
Daniel DeCamp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)