ELECTIONATE AUGUST 20, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Eight years ago, an embattled incumbent president overcame mediocre approval ratings by dividing the electorate along cultural lines and attacking an unnatural politician from Massachusetts as a wealthy elitist. Today, Obama’s reelection strategy is startlingly reminiscent of George W. Bush’s. As an example, take the Obama campaign's response to Mitt Romney's vice-presidential pick: While everyone expected Obama to attack Ryan on Medicare, attacks on Ryan's abortion stance went on the airwaves at the same time.
What's changed over the past eight years that's allowed the culture war to be turned on its head? On an issue like gay marriage, changing public views is part of the issue. But more broadly, Democrats are benefiting in the cultural war from Obama’s ability to ensure the allegiance of socially conservative non-white voters, and they’re taking advantage by going on the offensive.
When Bush attempted to appeal to social conservatives, he wasn’t just appealing to white evangelicals. He was also appealing to a large number of socially conservative minorities who often support Democrats in national elections. While 91 percent of African Americans voted for Gore in 2000, just 24 percent consider themselves liberal according to a recent Gallup poll. Indeed, 29 percent of African Americans consider themselves conservative, and many of these cross-pressured voters disagree with the national Democratic Party’s stance on cultural issues. Similarly, a large number of culturally conservative Latino voters have traditionally supported the Democratic Party, and the Bush campaign was determined to appeal to them too, not only by stressing conservative social values, but also by emphasizing education and a moderate immigration policy.
As a result, Bush made gains among Latinos and African American voters. Kerry performed a net-four points worse among black voters than Gore did four years earlier, and even worse among Latino voters. Although disputes over the exit polls prevent an authoritative account of just how poorly Kerry did among Hispanics, the final exit polls suggested that Bush won 40 or 44 percent of Latino voters, up from 2000. As a result, Bush won Florida by 5 points, instead of 5 Supreme Court votes, and he flipped New Mexico into the red column.
Eight years later, Republicans are far removed from their mid-decade peak among minority voters. Immigration policy appears to have played a role in driving the swing Latino voters out of the Republican fold, even after a recession felt hard in Latino communities. Obama’s historic candidacy has given Democrats an unprecedented advantage among African American voters. These gains among minority voters appear likely to endure in 2012, with Obama already near the 67 percent of Latino voters that he won in 2008. While Obama isn’t assured of winning 67 percent of Latino voters and 95 percent of African Americans, he’s all but assured to finish far above Kerry’s tallies with both groups.
At the same time, non-white voters constitute a larger share of the electorate than they did in 2004, increasing from 23 to 26 percent of the electorate over the intervening four years. Obama’s resilient gains among non-white voters have combined with their growing share of the electorate to lower Obama’s burden among white voters to historically low levels. Obama could conceivably win 38 percent of the white vote and still prevail nationally. In contrast, Kerry won 40 percent of white voters in 2004, but he lost by three: If Obama repeated Kerry’s performance and won 40 percent of white voters in 2012, he’ll probably win.
As a result, the old culture war calculus has flipped from favoring Republicans to Democrats. If Obama can hold conservative minority voters, then Obama could win the election by simply by doing as well as Kerry did among white voters in 2004. One way to do that? Re-run the debates that dominated the 2004 campaign, like gay marriage and tax cuts for the wealthy. And that appears to be the Obama campaign’s choice, even while adding new issues like contraception, where Democrats are on even safer ground than they are on gay marriage. Here’s a different way to frame the issue: gay marriage is more popular among white voters than Obama, so he stands to make gains among those voters. Now, it’s not exactly this simple. Obama has suffered losses among white voters without a college degree and many of them supported Kerry in 2004. But Obama is doing better among college-educated voters than Kerry did, and that makes it even easier for Obama to pursue progressive social positions. Now supporting gay marriage reinforces a larger number of college educated white Obama supporters, and alienates fewer white working class Obama supporters.
The Romney campaign appears to have made a similar calculation: at the moment, there aren’t advertisements about gay marriage, even in North Carolina, where gay marriage was soundly defeated just a few months ago. Why? The Obama voters opposed to gay marriage are generally, although hardly exclusively, African American. The Romney campaign probably shouldn’t waste it’s time appealing to that particular voting bloc, especially since there are plenty of moderate Republicans who support gay marriage in North Carolina’s better educated metropolitan areas. If the Romney campaign gets desperate, they might try and use gay marriage to rebuild their support among socially conservative working class voters skeptical of outsourcing, Bain, and Romney’s tax returns. But gay marriage probably doesn’t have a role to play in a close election—no side clearly benefits.
With Obama all but assured an overwhelming share of the non-white vote, Democrats have free-reign to pursue more liberal stances on social issues. While in the past, such a stance would risk alienating socially conservative minorities and white working class voters, Obama’s identity and immigration policy all but ensures elevated levels of support among African Americans and Latinos, while Obama’s lesser burden among white working class voters paradoxically allows Obama to pursue policies opposed by a majority of white working class voters.
37 comments
That may well be Obama's current strategy, but I'm not so sure it's a winning strategy. Obama won in 2008 because the Republican brand was toxic, so toxic that the Democrats were willing to take a chance with either a black candidate or a woman candidate. While it's true the black candidate won, and won by a relatively significant margin, he did in large part due to a record turnout among minority (black) and young voters and against a doddering candidate with a running mate who is an imbecile and representing a party that was toxic. How soon we forget. So now Obama's path to re-election is to do as well with white voters as Kerry? Kerry, you may recall, lost. And so will Obama if he sticks with this strategy. Will Obama's core voting block, minority and young voters, turn out in 2012 in near the numbers as in 2008? And does Obama's strategy motivate them to turn out? To turn out in what is clearly a hostile environment for minority voters (the Republican efforts are designed as much for intimidation as for exclusion) and a horrible economy for young voters? Cohn is probably right about Obama's current strategy (Cohn is almost always right), but I question whether it's a winning strategy.
- rayward
August 20, 2012 at 7:53am
He's become a "culture warrior" because Republicans have adopted radical social and cultural positions. Todd Akin's recent statement that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" is the most recent example of that. His real push on cultural issues is driven by issues that the GOP raised or supported, and are generally about womens' rights. His support of gay marriage is groundbreaking and historical, but it will be viewed as just that by election time - as history. I expect that things like Rep. Akin's statement, insurance coverage of contraception, and Paul Ryan's "forcible rape" bill are the cultural issues that will play a larger role in the campaign.
- Attrill
August 20, 2012 at 10:16am
8 years ago 43 won by: stressing national security issues--"the war on terror," playing on the traditional trope of the Ds as namby pamby on defence, Kerry's own impossible woodeness as a candidate without the talent to be competitive at the presidential level, and a host of other factors large and small. So Cohn's first paragraph suffers from being reductive in the service of setting up a dubious premise on which to mount his argument. Cohn says the changes over the past 8 year comprise turning "the culture war on its head," which means to invert it in the sense that, the argument is, Obama a D is doing what Bush an R did 8 years ago. But even granting the artificial basis for Cohn's dubious premise, and even granting that premise, I can't follow the parallels. Ryan impossibly complicates the argument (having no comparability to Edwards as Kerry's running mate.) Ryan and Romney are assimilable to each other and it truly is a Romney-Ryan ticket, so transformative is Ryan in this race. Cohn says as much by noting the abortion based attack on RYAN rather than pointing to a specifically culture based attack on Romney. To be sure, as well, Ryan blunts--though not completely-- the attack on Romney as a an out of touch, rather effete "rich, old white man." And, too, the symbiosis between Ryan and Romney blunts that attack as does the politically (bold and self confident act) of choosing Ryan. I'd note as well that that the selection of the abortion attack on Ryan, to my mind, hardly denotes cultural warrior strategy echoing 43's of 8 years ago. Only a fool would think that Ryan does not attract a Mediscare attack and Medicare has been a front and centre issue for both sides since the VP pick. I'd see an abortion attack on Ryan as a more of a side bar in these hard economic times. And Obama and his advisors are no fools. Here's the biggest part here that puzzles me: that Ds benefit in the "culture war from Obama’s ability to ensure the allegiance of socially conservative non-white voters, and they’re taking advantage by going on the offensive." What am I missing? And I'm not sure I even understand this clearly. Is Cohn saying Obama ensures non white socially conservative voters' allegiance by his general appeal to minorities; or is he saying Obama ensures that allegiance by by going after Romney-Ryan aggressively on culture issues? If it's the latter, the argument is self refuting because being aggressive on cultural issues-gay marriage, abortion etc.- is more than anything bound to turn off socially conservative non white voters. And if it's the former, the argument is self refuting because being aggressive on cultural issues-gay marriage, abortion etc.- is more than anything bound to turn off socially conservative non white voters. Finally! for what I want to say, this seems to me to underscore the dubiety of Cohn's premise: "On an issue like gay marriage, changing public views is part of the issue." Such an observation only makes sense if gay marriage is at part of the heart of a supposed Obamaist aggressive cultural issues campaign meant to take it to, and help disqualify, Romney-Ryan. But I have no sense whatsoever of either an aggressive cultural warrior campaign generally or of any such campaign featuring the issue of gay marriage. (One only needs to remember the oh sotto voce "evolution" on gay marriage before the campaign began in earnest.) If my sense is correct then what exactly is the explanatory power of changing public views on gay marriage? If my concerns over the sturdiness of Cohn's premise have merit then the argument that follows from it would be, it follows, pervasively flawed.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 11:36am
Whatever.
- mlottman
August 20, 2012 at 11:53am
Maybe "culture warrior" isn't the right term? Maybe it is, but basman does raise some interesting points. However, bringing up the assault on huge groups of Americans, #1, women, #2, people who aren't rich, #3, people of color/urban voters, #4 immigrants, #5, gay people, #6, religious minorities - is that culture war? If so Obama is merely defending the human and civil rights of most Americans. So call it what you will, I think this "culture war" by Obama isn't akin to Bush - rather it's a defense of human rights and the civil rights that underpin our democracy. Without those rights we don't have a country, period.
- Sophia
August 20, 2012 at 12:10pm
By the same token, workers - workers suffer at the hands of incompetent and/or venal management. That in turn impoverishes our families and puts us all at risk, including from poverty, illness and death. So the Bain issue, Republican attacks on unions, and also older, poor and disabled people who stand to lose bigtime under Romney/Ryan are all fair game. Access to health care and decent jobs and education EVEN IF you aren't rich and/or white is a major issue (I guess this comes under the heading "class warfare," and Obama is right to attack on these issues because they're key to America's fairness and our promise as a nation. "Culture" in this context is really about liberty, the freedom to be oneself and to be an equal citizen in a country based on that very principle - ironically, it's the Right which is always yapping about freedom and trying to instill a fear of the government but they're the ones actively seeking to undermine individual rights and individual freedom as well as equal access to America's riches and her promise. R&R claim they have our best interests at heart and have some magic formula to make us all prosperous again by shredding the social contract, raising taxes on the poor, lowering taxes on the rich and drowning the government in the bathtub, except for the war industry of course. As part of this they think it's acceptable to shred our human and civil rights. So if that's culture war Obama is absolutely correct to wage it. Finally there is race/urban voters. They most certainly are out to disenfranchise us. That's an enormous issue and again, it isn't "cultural," except insofar as it's a direct assault on America's political and civil and legal culture (no biggie right?) In this context, the Republicans are trying to strip Americans of civil and human rights, empower corporations at the expense of people and environment, make the boss class richer at the expense of workers. Talk about a target rich opportunity. Rock on Obama. This isn't a time to be shy. The majority of Americans don't even qualify as "Americans" if you look at what the GOP is trying to do to us, have already done even to the very concept of what is a "person." Corporations and zygotes are "people," but women, gays, poor people, sick people, workers, religious minorities, people of color, immigrants, older people, kids, disabled people, union people, rape victims, so forth, apparently aren't people? At least not "equal" people. This is such bad news - where is the mainstream media? The voter suppression business alone is terrifying but the fact that Akin is leading in his race for the Senate despite his full on attack on women is appalling. And the Romney/Ryan lies are not political speech, they're propaganda.
- Sophia
August 20, 2012 at 12:12pm
This piece appears to be something that was thrown together just to get something on site. A bunch of ifs and buts. "...there are plenty of moderate Republicans..." There aren't plenty of moderate Republicans at any educational level anywhere. The GOP and those who vote for them have become radicals. That's why Boehner and Romney have to mouth radical party lines against their better judgement. I know a couple of college-educated Republicans in urban areas, and they think Sarah Palin was a good choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Politically, they're much closer to Hank Williams, Jr. than they are to Mitt Romney's liberal father, George. And they hate Obama as much as the retarded Hank Jr. does. “We’ve got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the US, and we hate him!” Hank Williams, Jr., at an Iowa concert on 8/17/12 Hank Williams, Sr. had a sad soul. Jr. has an ugly soul. And he's a very popular Republican.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 12:59pm
...There aren't plenty of moderate Republicans at any educational level anywhere... What utter self-affirming nonsense, with all due respect. Like no one else has a point of view worthy of your divine consideration.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 1:16pm
The key word is "plenty," basman. You're a Canadian. You're not in daily contact with Americans, including Republicans. Yes, there are moderate Republicans, but in today's America they are a small minority. Way back when, they used to be a majority. The GOP has become radicalized. Many college-educated, urban Republicans now love guns. I know one such Republican. I voted for George Romney for Governor of Michigan in the Sixties, because he was a moderate and because I liked his cool hair helmet. Mitt Romney used to be a moderate himself. But he has no choice but to be a radical now. The GOP base demands it. There could be 60 million-plus Republicans who vote for the radical Romney/Ryan ticket in November. And anyone who votes for a radical is not a moderate. If Obama wins by a comfortable margin, I'll bow to you and admit you're right (I HOPE to bow to you--I would LOVE to). Some Republicans voted for Obama in 2008, not because Palin was on the GOP ticket, but because they saw McCain in a panic during the Wall Street meltdown, while Obama was calm. I have a Republican nephew-in-law, a math professor with an IQ of about 160, who did that. But he loves Palin, and now he's voting for Romney/Ryan. Now that Wall Street is producing record dividends again, partly due to Obama's calm, the majority of GOP voters will feel free to vote for their radical ticket in November. Ever since Reagan, the GOP has been seized with a religious-type zeal, convinced that their party should be the only one with power in America. People like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have been their high priests. Can things turn around? Sure, but probably not for a while. Religious zeal is hard to kick.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 2:33pm
Well basman, if moderate Republicans exist, where are you guys? I presume you are a Republican. Your party is out of control. It's not in any sense moderate. It is lying. It is trying to suppress the vote. It is trying to strip people of their human and civil rights, not to mention deliberately bankrupting the country. There is no way these policies, beginning with Reagan, could possibly have been an accident and lo - a mere handful of Americans has almost all the wealth (and power) in America. And this means what for a democracy? Moderate Republicans need to band together and stand up against this stuff loud and clear, and now.
- Sophia
August 20, 2012 at 2:36pm
The comments of magboy47 resonate as correct in my experience and are not deserving of basman's haughty denigration. I have a number of Republican acquaintances who, while otherwise well-educated and seemingly rational, have bought in to the "stop the socialist" party line and all the ugliness that goes with it. And that's here in Massachusetts where moderate Republicans have historically dominated the party and have had electoral success (e.g. the "old" Romney).
- appleton
August 20, 2012 at 3:29pm
Sophia: Your presumption is presumptuous. I'd call myself a Canadian independent centrist who sometimes on some issues and for some politicians leans a little left and sometimes a little right on others. To both Sophia and Magboy: When close to or more than 50% of your fellow citizens soon--in about 86 days--vote for Romney-Ryan how much do you intend to slag them all? I'm making no brief for Rs here. I'm, rather, suggesting a liitle humility is in order with respect to points of view differing from your own, all absurd outliers--whether D or R-- notwithstanding. People who worry about too high spending and too high foreign borrowing and unsustainable deficits and who cast a critical eye on entitlements and who privilege free markets and what McCloskey likes to call the "bourgeois virtues" and who are culturally conservative aren't ipso facto immoderate, unintelligent, reactionary or unenlightened. An immense number of them will be smarter, more accomplished, deeper and better informed than any of the three of us.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 3:49pm
basman, I think that showing humility in respect of differing points of view is something that has, notably, gotten Barack Obama nowhere over the past four years. People who worry about high spending but don't seem to worry about it when it's on the military cannot be taken seriously; people who worry about unsustainable deficits but who refuse any revenue component for the solution to the problem cannot be taken seriously; people who privilege free markets in a situation where markets have clearly failed cannot be taken seriously. As to the "bourgeois virtues," they do not belong to any one political party, and as far as conservative attitudes on cultural issues are concerned, I'm happy to discuss the question of rhyme and meter in poetry with any of the army of not-immoderate, not-unintelligent, progressive and enlightened people in the Republican ranks.
- ironyroad
August 20, 2012 at 4:11pm
Well basman, I have known you were Canadian for some time now, which makes your defense of our current GOP even weirder. You should be worried. You should not be defending these people. You CAN name a few moderate Republicans, perhaps - like Jon Huntsman - but he has expressed dismay with this current crop of "leaders," as well he should. And: I honestly don't know how to respond to your comment to me and Magboy. If 50% of the American public really does vote for Romney I will be deeply distressed. I will have to be looking backward into history to remember a time when a large percentage of people in other nominally democratic nations elected terrible people and terrible political parties. It has happened you know. And not that long ago, not that far away. So I would feel extremely threatened. This is simply not business as usual basman. It doesn't have to do with fiscal conservatism either. And no, we don't have to respect them or have "humility," they are just wrong on so many issues, and using lies, propaganda, hate TV and radio to get uninformed, poorly educated and often misogynist and racist people to vote for their agenda. It's appalling and you should not defend it! I don't see how you can defend them. Truly I don't. They have nothing to do with fiscal conservatism; rather they want to slash and burn to the extent the government basically doesn't exist except for making war, which not so coincidentally makes huge profits for some of the richest, most powerful people in the world. Ditto, they are fine with subsidizing the oil industry, which is extremely powerful, rich, and catastrophically bad for the environment and also, geopolitically toxic. They argue for supporting corporate profits, like those of the "health care industry," rather than delivering good and affordable health care to the American people. They are fine with getting rid of the EPA, the weather service, any help whatsoever for the poor, and destroying Social Security and Medicare along with the environment. They have no real plans for jobs either. Meanwhile corporate profits are very high and they are sitting on trillions. And our infrastructure is crumbling. But they don't want to fix it (BIG GOVERNMENT!) And they want to raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich. So please, give me a break. I'm not going to apologize or have humility for bad ideas OR people who exhibit extremist ideologies and/or simply have no clue what's going on, let alone for people who think women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape," or for people who openly want to suppress the African-American vote, or for people who don't care if they destroy the environment or not, or who care more for guns than for people, who claim to be all for freedom yet who are going out of their way to try and strip people of their civil rights, their privacy and their dignity. People who claim that zygotes have human rights exceeding those of women? I should have humility? Please. PLEASE give us a break sir. Or madam. I don't care which. YOU are not going to be a victim if these people get in. We are. On the other hand, maybe that isn't true either. Just because you're a few miles north of here doesn't mean you aren't going to get screwed if the US becomes more radical, more dangerous, more poor, more heavily armed and continues destroying the environment which you happen to share.
- Sophia
August 20, 2012 at 4:18pm
Irony, Obama's political means are one thing. Fair minded discussion that holds to the virtues of humility, respect and open mindedness are something else. They shouldn't be run together as you've done sort of. Too, I presume some sardonicism, but obviously rhyme and meter are not what I'm talking about. But here's a good idea: you have in your state's public university system a humanities colleague, Wilfred McClay, who is sublimely equipped to speak with you about rhyme, meter, the bourgeois virtues, and any of the broad range of political issues I briefly listed. Have a chat with him, why doncha', and then get back to me on how immoderate, reactionary, unenlightened, ignorantly extreme, uncaring, dangerous, hide bound and what a lackey to the "1%" he is. After all, my goodness, he even stoops to such imbecilic depths as to pen the occasional essay for that miserable, unenlightened rag Commentary, notwithstanding that these essays are well argued, well reasoned, extremely well informed, accessible and well writted. Well writted, get it?
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 4:35pm
basman, I, too, am worried about the runaway deficits and entitlement programs in this country. But the GOP is taking a radical approach to dealing with them. The deficit? No new income taxes ever again for the rich to help bring it down--just extreme cuts to programs and government departments that are critical to our survival, like law enforcement and the SEC. Paul Ryan does want new taxes that would affect the middle class and the poor much more than the rich--the value-added tax, which is like a federal sales tax. The GOP wants to cut funding dramatically to the SEC, encouraging criminals on Wall Street to go wild and crash the economies of America, Canada, and the world again. In fact, the GOP wants the SEC gone. BTW, both Romney and Ryan have promised to deregulate Wall Street again to the extent that it was under Bush. And they ain't lyin'. I'm completely in favor of free markets (I love those puppies). But deregulation leads to monopoly and price fixing. And monopolistic, corporate America has trillions of dollars in the bank to spend on jobs. Where are the jobs? The free market ain't workin' right now. I'd love for it to work properly, not in the monopolistic way it is now. You're confusing people's political beliefs with their personal and cultural ones. I agree that there is much more to Republicans than their political beliefs. Many of them are very nice and generous people (they're better tippers than Democrats). But most of them vote their resentments, not thought-out beliefs. My nephew-in-law is a perfect example of this. He got through college on a Pell grant (government scholarship), and later he was in a teachers' union, but he hates the government and unions. And he's sent me some ugly racist e-mails about entitlement programs. But I like him. He's very smart and very productive, and he's fun to get beaten at games by. He just votes his emotions, instead of his intellect. When I talk about Republicans, I'm talking about the political part of their lives only. And the vast majority of Republicans, even the intelligent ones, have chosen to vote with their emotions. George W. Bush, a nitwit, getting a second term was proof of that. Speaking of culture warriors, did you know that Paul Ryan, radical Catholic that he is, has said in the past that a woman who takes the morning-after pill should be charged with murder? Should intelligent Republican voters know that before they vote for him? A lot of intelligent Catholics should, because most of them practice some form of birth control. basman, the GOP declared an all-out war on Democrats when Reagan was president. They impeached a Democratic president, because they were enraged that he got a second term. And those who are consternated about this type of behavior are supposed to give the mean-spirited people who vote for a radical, anti-American party the benefit of the doubt? Not those of us who love America. Sorry.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 4:46pm
...If 50% of the American public really does vote for Romney I will be deeply distressed... There's no "if" about it give or take a point or two over or under. So what are you going to say about -/+ 60,000,000 of your fellow citizens? Are you going to dismiss and reject and insult them as vehemently as you and Magboy seem to indicate you intend to? I think they'll survive but it doesn't speak well of you, respectfully.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 4:47pm
Magboy and Sophia give me you reasoned data based answers to the following, not mine: ...In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful. In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed. In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year. Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps. Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits. And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration. Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue. His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further. And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion. It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed. Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy. The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output... When I read this I find the argument that all wisdom and correct answers lie with the Ds and that the Rs are cavemen and cavewomen reflecting worse on the indicters than the indicted. But go ahead show me your superior understanding compared to this reactionary, immoderate, stupid analysis. Lay it flat, filet it with your superior arguments based on facts, figures and logic? Why amn't I expecting a competent reply any time soon? But by all means surprise me.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 5:14pm
basman: "Obama's political means are one thing. Fair minded discussion that holds to the virtues of humility, respect and open mindedness are something else. They shouldn't be run together as you've done sort of." I not sure I know what you mean, exactly. Just to make what I said a little plainer: the president has attempted on several occasions to bring Republicans into a larger debate on major issues in ways that would have taken their perspective substantially into account. These attempts were rejected, because the only perspective they had was, in their own words, "making sure Obama was a one-term president." Regarding Wilfred McClay, I actually had lunch with him a couple of years ago, and found him to be a very engaging conversation partner and an interesting guy with lots of stories. So what? There are also narrow-gauge and ideologically fixated Democrats out there with whom I would probably enjoy lunch less. And by the way your cheesy patronizing tone here -- something I don't recall from our exchanges over the years -- irritates me. So drop it, why doncha? Ok, I was being a bit sardonic with the poetry thing, but I think there is a serious point to be made: many people with progressive attitudes also have their conservative side and literature and the arts is one place (there are others, such as environmental issues) where left-right don't always line up as predicted. As George Lakoff has put it, many liberals in the office are conservatives at home, and vice versa.
- ironyroad
August 20, 2012 at 5:19pm
As far as I can tell, this little tiff started with: Magboy: "...There aren't plenty of moderate Republicans at any educational level anywhere..." Basman: "What utter self-affirming nonsense, with all due respect. Like no one else has a point of view worthy of your divine consideration." The issue then, is the lack of moderation on the right. Magboy and Sophia responded with examples of such when asked so to do. Basman's response is a complete non-sequitur, a copy-and-pasted piece of Fox News boilerplate that Magboy and Sophia are told to refute in its entirety. How on earth does a mostly wrong-headed lambaste of Obama equal a convincing refutation of the description of the Republican party in the thrall of its most unhinged members? Are you serious? I won't waste my time with that post in its entirety, but just take this, for example: "It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed. Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy. The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output..." Shortcomings in Obama's policies there well may be, but if you seriously think that the answer to solving these issues is the replacement of President Obama with his Republican rivals, well, the best I can assume is that you simply haven't been paying attention these last 3 years.
- bunthorne
August 20, 2012 at 5:55pm
"There's no "if" about it give or take a point or two over or under. So what are you going to say about -/+ 60,000,000 of your fellow citizens? Are you going to dismiss and reject and insult them as vehemently as you and Magboy seem to indicate you intend to? I think they'll survive but it doesn't speak well of you, respectfully." No, basman, I won't dismiss and reject those who vote for Romney/Ryan. Some of them are my friends, plus, I believe in a 2-party state, unlike many Republicans. But I will insult some of their more radical beliefs in discussion with a third party (I don't discuss politics at length with friends). We need a conservative party in America. We don't need a Right-wingnut one. Living in Canada, I don't think you realize how far Right the GOP has gone. I agree with your past comment that MSNBC is a smug network. But I watch it 5 hours a week, just to get the details of how radical the GOP has become. Another tidbit from today: A Right-wing medical doctor, in order to avoid dealing with any possibility of abortion, has announced that women who are raped do not get pregnant. And no Republican has stood up to challenge this MEDICAL DOCTOR. Most people who vote Republican won't know about this nut. But they should.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 5:55pm
basman, I'm not much into wonky stuff, but I'll respond to 2 of your points. Last year at this time Obama offered House Republicans a 10-for-one deal to start downsizing the national debt. FOUR times he said he would cut $10 trillion off spending over 10 years in exchange for closing some, not all, tax loopholes for the rich over that period in the amount of $1 trillion. And the GOP turned him down flat FOUR times. Boehner whined, "He moved the goalposts on us," meaning Obama has originally asked for less from rich people. But don't you think a 10-for-one deal is great in any area of economics? I'd take it every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Last fall Obama put the Jobs Act before Congress, which would pay private contractors to rebuild America's infrastructure, a much-needed project. To pay for it he again asked for some tax loopholes for the rich to be closed. Again, the GOP turned him down flat, because, according to them, creating jobs would help Obama get re-elected. I want you to tell me how any president could create millions of jobs in 3 years, when, after a terrible economic crash, he's stonewalled at every opportunity by the disloyal opposition? America has a mixed economy, but most jobs are supposed to be created by private enterprise--by the people who have over $2.2 trillion in the bank at the moment. Is Obama supposed to force them at gunpoint to do their job, that is, create jobs? If corporate Americans weren't so cowardly in their greed, they would create jobs like they're supposed to, and the new taxes from these new jobs would help pay down the deficit. But, seriously, with a straight face, tell me what Obama can do to force a filthy-rich corporate America to hire people, and, also, what he can do to get the GOP to accept a 10-for-one deal to help pay down the debt. Be specific. BTW, Romney has promised to create 12 million new jobs in his first 4 years in the Oval Office. Think he'll renege on his promise? I've got to tell you the truth. I wish he could create 12 million new jobs. I want America healthier and happier. If he can do it, hell, I'll vote for him in 2016. Marx got a couple things right. We humans are economic animals, and we need work to feel useful. Yes, there is an increasing number of people who don't want to work, but that's mostly due to an increasing population. And, of course, when a very healthy corporate America refuses to even offer jobs, that can create dependency on the government, too.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 7:43pm
meaning Obama HAD originally asked
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 8:13pm
Bunthorne I suggest the non sequitur lies with you. First, I made it clear the words I copied were not mine. I won't for the moment reveal their source. But I note they seem to be an attempt at a facts based argument which was meant to stand against sweeping condemnation of all things Republican. So this is your response: it's cut and paste; it's Fox News boiler plate--I assure you it's not; it's a wrong headed lambaste. Then you quote a substantive part of it which adds up to faulting Obama for not trying to follow up on Simpson Bowles, and what's your take down of this Bunthorne: that if I think Obama should be replaced then I haven't been paying attention for the last three years. Well Bunthorne, that is some powerful analysis and your one as well who wants to make absurd generalizations about most Rs. You didn't want to waste your time with the entirety of what I copied, but you did, Bunthorne, a good job of wasting our time--mine and yours--with the part you did copy.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 8:13pm
Irony to you I'm sorry for any cheesy condescension but I was similarly irritated by how I read the stuff about rhyme and meter, which maybe I read too much into. I'll leave all the personal stuff there. The conflation I'm suggesting is that how Obama politics is categorically different than how serious, open minded people should discuss the issues of the day and that broadsides against virtually all Rs are not the starting point of wisdom. So in that sense I thought your response to my point about that by means of the political problem Obama ran into from R politicians was for our purposes a category error. That's all.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 8:22pm
Magboy you're another guy I particularly like here so if anything I said offended you for that I'm sorry though I don't relinquish the point I've been trying to make. But let me, in a different tone perhaps, pursue one point raised by what I quoted and that Bunthorne noted but failed to address even while pretending to: why didn't Obama make any effort to continue along with Simpson Bowles? This is a criticism I hear and read coming from all quarters moderately D and R. And from the guy I quoted, a touch more: ...The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House. There’s truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.... And then as we know he goes on to cite the Simpson Bowles thing as one example.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 8:32pm
Magboy you're another guy I particularly like here so if anything I said offended you for that I'm sorry though I don't relinquish the point I've been trying to make. But let me, in a different tone perhaps, pursue one point raised by what I quoted and that Bunthorne noted but failed to address even while pretending to: why didn't Obama make any effort to continue along with Simpson Bowles? This is a criticism I hear and read coming from all quarters moderately D and R. And from the guy I quoted, a touch more: ...The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House. There’s truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.... And then as we know he goes on to cite the Simpson Bowles thing as one example.
- basman
August 20, 2012 at 8:32pm
basman, perhaps you could indicate what "category" you think your remark "I'm making no brief for Rs here. I'm, rather, suggesting a liitle humility is in order with respect to points of view differing from your own, all absurd outliers--whether D or R-- notwithstanding" occupies, and how that "category" would be different from the "category" containing my response that Obama himself has made notable gestures in that respect that were rebuffed. It could be that you are distinguishing between TNR subscribers' views and more general events in the outside world, but it still remains very unclear what categories you are working with -- which, I sense, you think that we should all be familiar with. I note that you were quick to respond to magboy's comments which were on the lines of an informal argument backed up by personal anecdote with a huge cut'n'paste job from Neil Ferguson. I don't know if I'd call that a "category" error but it does suggest that you jump from one form of writing to the other quite easily -- as we all do, indeed. No offense at all meant by the poetry comment -- quite the opposite, as I thought you'd be the fastest to get what I meant.
- ironyroad
August 20, 2012 at 8:50pm
You're right, basman. Obama has made several major mistakes in the past several years, and Simpson-Bowles is one of them. It's a good plan, especially in relation to Social Security. But I think it's too complicated for average voters, of which I am one, to understand. That could be one of the reasons Obama didn't push it. That would be a good research project--to find out his reasoning. But, of course, if he had pursued it, it may not have had much of an effect anyway. National economic plans in any nation are hard to implement, especially in a free society. I don't get offended by anybody or anything, basman. If you offended me, I missed it. I learned to have a thick skin from my first day of basic training in the Air Force at age 17. I bopped off an air-conditioned train in San Antonio, where it was 105 degrees, and a sergeant rushed up to me, got in my face, and suggested I was something he stepped in on the street. I've had a thick skin ever since that moment. It helped me to survive in basic training and the rest of my life.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 8:54pm
BTW, you're one of my favorites at TNR, too.
- magboy47.
August 20, 2012 at 8:56pm
Sorry, I did not realize that Ferguson's words were supposed to represent a "moderate" Republican stance. I would offer that the following is pretty boilerplate Fox News: "Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits." As far as the Simpson-Bowles plan, this is what I mean when I suggest you have not been paying attention. Again, "Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. " Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, there was absolutely no chance of getting through a budget that included ANY tax increase whatsoever, no matter how many cuts were made. And why is that? Because the Republican-controlled House would not allow it. And who elected those House members? Look, I certainly do not think that conservatism necessarily equals radicalism. And, living in San Francisco, believe me, I know that liberalism can have its radical and unsavory adherents. It would be fantastic if political discourse was always between rational individuals, and the best policy was always divined via calm debate and compromise. But, at this moment in American history, it becomes very difficult in my eyes to classify anyone who supports the modern Republican party as anything but radical. It would seem that a moderate person would need to perform the most acrobatic of mental contortions to make their political beliefs fit their party.
- bunthorne
August 20, 2012 at 11:09pm
"Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful." Ummm, OK, so you value these things and believe Romney will get them accomplished? I do support everything mentioned in that quote and they pretty well sum up why I think the GOP needs to be defeated in every branch of government in the 2012 election. Obama certainly worked to progress legislation on every one of those issues.
- Attrill
August 20, 2012 at 11:12pm
basman, I'm going to reiterate what others above have said re: Obama. Obama is not a magician and he is not a dictator. He can't wave a magic wand, regardless of the virtues of his ideas, or the heartfelt idealism and good intentions he's expressed, and force Congress to pass the laws and appropriate the funds and institute the policies, including tax policies, that will make them happen. He can't force the (very wealthy) business community to do ANYTHING, period. He can't get an obstructionist Congress to even think seriously about his jobs bills. They won't raise taxes even on the wealthy. They've squandered our good credit rating and held the nation hostage with their games. Bowles/Simpson had some good points, but they are not realistic either. One one key issue alone, that of demanding people work until (insert age here), it's clear they don't understand a) the state of the job market b) the effect of aging c) people who don't sit at desks all day long. Also, instead of taking on the real monster in America, the war industry, they go after the people's safety nets, which are thin compared to other developed nations. So the priorities are still right wing, I think. But that is beside the point at the moment because the real arguments are so extreme they beggar belief, and this includes GOP treatment of Obama both in Washington and among the mean spirited people of the Right, as well as the Ryan/Romney economic ideas which I find immoral. In any case, the Republicans vowed to take Obama down as soon as he was elected. They did the same to the Clintons, who were viciously attacked. Hillary Clinton spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy," and I am beginning to believe she was absolutely right about this. Rather than support the country and people of America, Democratic leaders were targeted by the Right, their ideas sabotaged, their administrations sabotaged, and the promise they brought to the country largely wasted. So, why are you attacking Obama? His ideas are fine but he can't act alone and the Tea Party in particular, but also the 24/7 propaganda machine of the Right, reflects some truly ugly attitudes among the people. In the case of FOX, Limbaugh and the wealthy super Pacs, they have the support of billionaires, but the mean spirited craziness they're employing to whip up the base is horrifying and has nothing to do with economics, but rather with resentment, fear, misogyny, religious bigotry and racism. Now, Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, made it perfectly clear that his and the GOP's primary mission was to limit Obama to one term. That means they are willing to crash this country in order to accomplish their scurrilous goal. And it's obvious that hatred, lies and propaganda as well as disseminating "business friendly" and anti-woman, pro-gun, anti-environment, anti-union and anti-worker legislation to state houses is part of their strategy, which is appalling on its face. And so are the constant murders by gun in America. We have a new industry too: privatized prisons. Do you understand, truly, the opportunity for abuse this presents? You know, basman, people who write comments on Harry's Place, British people, have some of the same misconceptions about American "conservatives," that they're like Tories, or even like the Republicans of old. Well they are not like Tories, or Eisenhower, or even Nixon. They are much, much further to the Right than these, both in terms of economic ideas, in their lust for raw power and ever huger sums of money. They are becoming more and more openly racist and misogynist. They have pledged allegiance to the flag of Grover Norquist rather than to the flag of America. Many openly idealize Ayn Rand, crackpot extraordinaire, and also, mega-hypocrite, who went on Social Security, but then her acolytes are always voting for huge government pork themselves, then screeching at the rest of us for "dependency," so what else is new. In a country where extremely wealthy and powerful industries are subsidized by the people of America, they have a hell of a nerve talking about "dependency," don't they. Let us not forget, too, that this country is still fighting a civil war begun in 1860. It was never really fully resolved. Racism and resentment of the Union are still alive. Attempts to suppress votes - Jim Crow - is still alive. Progress made by women is being threatened. When the Civil Rights Act was finally passed, Lyndon Johnson, I think, remarked that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. And, sure enough the "southern strategy," based on resentment of the Civil Rights Act, the idea that people of color are equal to whites, and should enjoy equal rights under the law, has been the Republican strategy and vote-getting mechanism ever since. It's especially since the Electoral College enables them to get away with it. So, a minority party has been able to wield huge power and they've become ever more extreme. There is religious extremism to the point that people are teaching creationism in schools. People think zygotes have more rights than people, and real people have no rights to a decent life. Finally, on economic probity: read Roger Cohen in the NYT today. He puts it succinctly: the GOP never met a war it didn't want to fight. This alone is economic disaster for the people of America not to mention incredibly destructive and dangerous to the rest of the world. So. If 60,000,000 Americans vote to support religious extremism, the suppression of people who are not white, attempts to abrogate women's rights, if they vote to end Medicare and gut Medicaid immediately and repeal the ACA, if they vote to privatize Social Security, if they vote against their country and for the rich and powerful corporations and their owners, if they vote against common sense protections for the environment and against rebuilding our infrastructure, against raising taxes except on the poor and working people of this country, if they vote for hunger, ignorance, rage, environmental destruction and war, I will have to seriously think about fleeing. That would break my heart. But I don't want to feel like a foreigner in my own country. I don't want to feel threatened, unworthy, unwanted and unsafe, especially since I'm a beat up old warhorse who grew up on stories of the Depression, who grew up poor, who was raised by a single mom, underpaid and overworked all her life, who died young, and who along with poverty and struggle, also told of flight, of my grandparent's flight from Europe, where they were murdering poor people, murdering Jews. There's another editorial in the Times today about extremism. A German man wrote in wondering what is wrong with us Americans. He echoed my point in a post above. He said, "We in Germany once voted for popularism and moral nihilism, and i am quite sure, it felt the same for those who tried to oppose this madness." I realize people don't want to go there. I suggest they'd better go there and really look at what the Right Wing is saying, has been saying, doing, for many years now, just under the veneer of reasonableness, wearing their nice blue suits, with their pretty wives by their side. When the Supreme Court overthrew a popular election (Bush v Gore) and the Citizen's United case allowed enormous and unlimited sums of corporate cash into the election process, the trap is sprung. The people are toast. We might as well face the fact that money and power reside now in only a few hands. So, really study what "voodoo economics" has led to, but also the adventurism and war profiteering since Vietnam, some of the really awful things the US has gotten involved with, like the totally unprovoked invasion of East Timor. You should watch the film "Balibo," then study the invasion and occupation of this tiny nation. Alarmingly and tragically, we played a role. Shamefully, we played a role. And people never even knew about it because the word from the top was "silence." And, when people talk about economics, they need to look at the mechanism of the Afghan and Iraq wars, unfunded because of the Bush Tax cuts, and how that stripped the people of their wealth and put it into the pockets of "defense" contractors and G*d knows where else. I'm sorry if this isn't plain and obvious. Well mannered discussions about Bowles-Simpson are, I'm afraid, absurd when we're dealing with full fledged nihilism. Here's a link to the NYT article. Please take it seriously. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/new-frontiers-of-extremism-from-the-gop.html?hp
- Sophia
August 21, 2012 at 3:40am
The number of "moderate" Republicans is indeed vanishingly small. Definined from political positions taken in the 60'-70's, moderate Republicans are, in fact, todays liberal Democrats. And that is largely because for 30 years, Dems have played political defense from a crouched position. As for "If 50% of the American public really does vote for Romney I will be deeply distressed."... but not if 45% - 49.9% vote for Romney/Ryan in a time of 8.2% unemployment and 1% GNP growth?? Is that really just fine to most of you?? I submit that is the nub of the problem. If BHO wins, it won't be by much. Good chance that Dems control neither branch of Congress (Aiken aside, BHO sure ain't campaigning for 'em)-- and BHO and the current Congess (especially the Senate) will do little or nothing to reverse the 30-year rightward drift. Many more in both parties this election cycle are voting against the other guy rather than for their guy. As for the President "can do little" meme, I don't buy it. If you really believe it, then it really doesn't matter that Bush won in 2000... or Romney wins in 2012. What you really mean, is BHO is ineffectual politically and has done/can do/will do little to reverse the continuous rightward drift. Both parties need a decisive defeat to reform. Best if the Dems go first. As in '29, when we were/are heading for a deepening economic crisis, better that a Repub Hoover than a Dem Hoover wins in a time when neither candidate has the personalitry nor the policies to deal with the severe current economic stagnation-- much less an economic decline once the gathering storm finally hits. If that storm hits before mid-October, Mittens high risk bet on the economy declining pays off and he almost certainly wins. If he loses because that doesn't happen by November (most likely probability), the Repubs win in 2014 and beyond (possibly for a generation) if the severe decline occurs in 2013-- a rather high probability.
- drofnats1
August 21, 2012 at 9:10am
Good point, drofnats, we need a kick-ass leader of the Dems from start to finish, the equivalent of Chris Christie on the Left. It's a matter of self-defense. If Obama gets re-elected, the Republicans are going to be mad with rage, and some of them will be suggesting in public that he should be removed from office by force. That's how insane they have become. And, of course, they will try to completely shut down the government and deprive all Americans, including some rich people, of any chance of recovery from this mess that the GOP's ridiculous economic policies have gotten us into. And good point, Sophia. I forgot to mention in my praise for Simpson-Bowles, the best possible economic plan in an imperfect world, that the Republicans would fight its implementation like tigers, if Obama signs on to it. They will even call the conservative parts of it the work of the devil, as long as Obama accepts them in the name of compromise and progress. The GOP accuses Obama and the Dems of trying to "Europeanize" America, but they are the ones acting like a crazed European opposition party. They have gone quite mad. And I still blame clueless Republican voters for the fact that these loons have the power that they do.
- magboy47.
August 21, 2012 at 12:37pm
Lots of good points made on this rather impassioned thread and I'm going to leave matters where they now stand and no doubt these issues will recur with plenty to argue about in the next 2 1/2 months or so. I'll just restate my essential two disconnected points here: 1, I think the head piece is flawed because in essence I see no sign the Ds are conducting a cultural issues campaign and I can't for the life of me see how, if they were, that would not tend to alienate conservative non-white voters. 2. A broad side smear of Republican with respect to their political ideas is self evidently a species of echo chamber foolishness. P.S. for Ironyroad, I don't know how to make myself more clear, but ome more try: what does the political rebuff of attempts by Obama to be moderate and compromising by the elected Rs--one category-- have to do with citizens of differening and varying political views, albeit either skewing D and left or R and right, discussing with each other open mindedly the merits and demerits of each other's positions and arguments-- another category? The example of the former isn't an answer to the plea for more or the lattter. p.p.s.s. I hold no brief for the Rs and were I an American I would one put my finger over one nostril and vote for Obama, none of that being inconsistent with anything I've said above. C'est ca pour moi ici.
- basman
August 21, 2012 at 2:20pm
Ok basman, thanks for the clarification. I think the misunderstanding arose from the fact that I don't see (at least at first glance) two categories there, but rather two items from the one broad category of non-ideological respect for the other's position, whether it's between the president and Mitch McConnell or any other pairing. But I accept that the context is obviously different in ordinary life.
- ironyroad
August 21, 2012 at 8:10pm