Not Letting the Truth Get in the Way

You know that old cliche about you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts? I guess that depends on whether it’s politically expedient.

I’m an old political science major. I appreciate differing points of view on the issues. I even solicit varying positions by reading a mix of publications. But what’s been going on in US politics is not that anymore. Reading this article, originally from the Guardian (UK), called The Right’s Stupidity Spreads, Enabled by a Too-Polite Left, I was particularly fascinated by this section:

Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum, and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that “conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics”. The result is a “shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology” which has “ominous real-world consequences for American society”.

Lofgren complains that “the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today”. The Republican party, with its “prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science” is appealing to what he calls the “low-information voter”, or the “misinformation voter”. While most office holders probably don’t believe the “reactionary and paranoid claptrap” they peddle, “they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base”.

And, it’s not that I wasn’t already generally aware of this. But it does confirm that I’m not totally crazy.

I’m watching ABC News This Week a couple of Sundays ago. Someone, I think it was Austin Goolsby, President Obama’s former economic czar, who was talking about the economic recovery. He noted that it might be going even better if we hadn’t lost jobs in the public sector. And some conservative woman rolls her eyes and says, “Yeah, right.”

Well, yeah, right. In a Bureau of Labor Statistics report citing the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.5% to 8.3%, it read: Over the past 12 months, the [public] sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.

This is also an interesting read: “Among the people who saw this [economic] crisis coming was the conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, the supply-side champion who wrote the manifesto for the Reagan Revolution… Yet for all those credentials, he is today an outcast from the very conservative ranks where he was once so influential. That’s because Bruce Bartlett dared to write a book criticizing the second George Bush as a pretend conservative who slashed taxes but still spent with wild abandon.” Watch and/or read the interview about Where the Right Went Wrong.

Do you know that old cliche about you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts? I guess that depends on whether it’s politically expedient. And it does explain folks such as Donald Trump promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US or tweeting in October 2011 that the freak snowstorm was proof that man-made climate change is, in the words of the article, “an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy,” or that “the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.”

Worse, though, for this librarian is the egregious ignoring of factual evidence, by creating pseudoscience and ignoring facts (Obama DID provide his “long-form” birth certificate) for political gain.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

There will be a Presidential inauguration one year from tomorrow

What about a third party?

I remember reading in someone’s blog late last year, “Please give me someone else to vote for besides Barack Obama.” It was a plea to the US Republican party regarding the November 2012 Presidential election. So far, that wish has not come true. The Republican base’s fear of Mitt Romney, I believe, is well-founded; his positions seem to follow the wind. The flaws of the rest of the field are too numerous, too exhausting to mention, but certainly including their collective racial polarization, Rick Perry’s sheer ignorance of even his own position on issues, and Newt Gingrich’s hubris.

This is not that I’m that enamored by the incumbent. There are all of the campaign promises he made that not only did not fulfill, he went 180. The recently-signed legislation which would deny suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention are among the elements that are terrifying to me. But which of his opponents would have taken a different position?

Andrew Sullivan, of all people, does note some of Obama’s accomplishments. I am happy about some of the President’s positions, notably gay rights, and remain cautiously hopeful about the outcome of SOPA. Also like some fun innovations of his administration such as this one.

What about a third party? There’s this mysterious Americans Elect, which is getting on the ballot in a number of states. Since there is no candidate (yet), it’s really difficult for me to gauge what its impact will be. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the nominee is appealing to me, I would have to still weigh the notion of whether the candidate could win enough electoral votes nationally to win, or at least not give the race to someone worse. Since no third party has EVER won the US Presidency, because of the way the system is rigged, it would make it difficult to select that candidate, no matter how attractive.

Meanwhile, I Wish I Had a Super PAC of my own.

It’ll be an interesting year.
***
Belated happy birthday to the FLOTUS, who turned 48 on Tuesday.

 

Guano crazy candidates QUESTION

Only recently have I realized that Herman Cain is also guano crazy.

For seven years out of eight years (2002-2007, 2009), we had at least one live bat in our house. The problem seems to finally be solved by roof insulation and fixing some gaps between the roof and the main house structure. One of the telltale signs you have a bat, even if you don’t see it: guano, which means bat poop.

I was talking about some of the candidates for President with my wife, and I was divvying them up between those with whom I merely oppose politically and those who I called “guano crazy”. I don’t know if I had made up that phraseology, or stole it from someone unconsciously, but I’ve become rather fond of it.

The question: among those who have announced that they are running, which candidates do you consider guano crazy? Democracy for America is running a poll, asking, among the Republicans: Who do you think would make the worst President? When I took the poll a few days ago, Rick Perry had a clear plurality of the votes cast, with over 40% of the vote, followed by Michelle Bachmann (c. 25%), Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain.

I would consider Perry to be guano crazy. His disastrous debates, when he decides to be too clever, but it backfires, as he mangles his narrative badly.

Michelle Bachmann is quite guano crazy as well, confusing both her American geographic history (Concord, NH is not THE Concord of Lexington and Concord, MA), but her rock and roll history (celebrating Elvis’ birthday on Elvis’ death day).

Only recently have I realized that Herman Cain is also guano crazy if he believes that it’s primarily the unemployed’s fault that they are without jobs. Santorum (don’t Google that word!) is guano, crazily trying to get Google to change its algorithms to keep him from being embarrassed, a situation he largely brought on himself through his bigotry.

Whereas, Huntsman, Romney, Buddy Roemer (who doesn’t even get to appear in the debates), I merely tend to disagree with. Gingrich checks the weather and takes whatever position he believes will be most popular; a snake. Ron Paul, I totally agree with about 10% of the time, but then he keeps talking.

Keep in mind that one of the guanos could be the next Vice-President if he or she doesn’t get the Prez nod. And don’t underestimate the ABR (Anyone But Romney) factor, which might make one of them the standard-bearer for the party in November 2012.

If the Election Were Held Tomorrow QUESTION

When do you start seriously paying attention to your national elections? I suppose for me, it’s when the calendar turns to a number divisible by four.

Labor Day of the year BEFORE the election, is the point at which the Presidential campaign is supposed to begin, although we’ve already had one candidate withdraw from the race already (Tim Pawlenty) and others teasing before declining (Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee). Then there are those who someone wants him to run but he said no (Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan) and one who is still teasing about running (the ubiquitous Sarah Palin).

I’m fascinated by this list of Presidential candidates. Randall Terry is running for the Democratic nomination? Really? It’s the first I’ve heard of this.

And why are some Republicans (Herman Cain, Rick Santorum) considered viable enough to appear in the Republican debates, but others (former governor of the swing state of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, pictured) not so? I mean I wouldn’t vote for him, but that’s true of a number of the contenders.

When do you start seriously paying attention to your national elections? I suppose for me, it’s when the calendar turns to a number divisible by four. Do you have a candidate already that you’re supporting? For me, it’s more of a process of elimination: not him, not her; definitely not him. And this reflection from a former GOP operative helps explains why.
***
The primary day in New York State is Tuesday, September 13. As of this writing, I have no idea who’s running for what in my area.

Sausage making done right – Gay marriage will be legal in NYS

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” – apparently misattributed to Otto von Bismarck. But every once in a while, you fry some sausage in the pan and it tastes great.

I was home watching YNN, the Time Warner cable news station, during an extended session of Capital Tonight Friday evening, when Steve Saland, a Republican state senator from the Mid-Hudson, started speaking about an amendment to the marriage equality bill. There’s an overlay on the screen indicating that Saland had not yet indicated which way he would vote on the bill.

But minutes later, it was obvious that he would be the 32nd vote necessary for the passage of the legislation. It was, among other things, a great television moment.

And after he spoke, I set the DVR and went to bed, satisfied that there would be a rainbow over New York; the state legislature would pass marriage equality, and the governor would sure sign it.

Then I woke up very early in the morning, and it was so. Yay.
***
Arthur’s observation.

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial