Why Liberals Are Wrong

There are false equivalences and then there are false equivalences. "Both sides do it," is widely known. Less so -- but equally wrong -- is the idea that conservative thought or morality is a mirror image of liberal ideology.

Krugman falls into the trap here

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty

Lawrence Davidson of Reader Supported News fails here (my italics):

The United States is, once more, increasingly a house divided. It is not divided by "slavery agitation" though some of the issues have their roots in that era. It is divided over fundamental differences in the meaning of the nation's Constitution and the very nature of government. These differences bring with them feelings that are just as emotional and inherently divisive as was slavery.

There are a growing number of Americans who no longer believe in the modern interpretation and application of US Constitution. They insist that the way Constitutional interpretation has evolved over the past half-century is a betrayal of true American principles. Many of these Americans are apparently enamored of the 19th century outlook that the only government that is legitimate is that which sees to the police, the military and the law. Everything else should be a private concern. If you tax them for programs that have to do with social equity or economic justice (even in its pitifully weak form), or even to maintain public functions such as education, transportation and social services, they consider it theft and imagine that they are subject to a new tyranny. In addition, many of them are not willing to go along with any election that might run counter to their outlook. Some are very close to advocating sedition, and a few are obviously already gunning for their imagined "tyrants."

Krugman and Davidson are looking down into a cesspool and think they see dirtied reflections of themselves. No, they are looking at a cesspool.

Let's start with Prof. Krugman who says that conservatives have a moral code different from liberals. Well, he is correct only in the sense that nothing is different from something. Morality requires thought. An ability to evaluate different ideas. Training a dog to behave politely -- to sit on command, come when called, and walk without tugging at the leash -- does not make the dog moral. It just makes the dog behave as its master chooses. The same dog could next be trained to snarl, bark, and bite, and would do so without contemplating moral distinctions between the two types of behavior. So goes American conservatism.

Davidson also assumes too much. Have you ever talked to Tea Partiers? They are indiscriminate ignoramuses unable to answer the simplest questions about their beliefs. Remember, they are the same people who are frightened of government involvement in Medicare and Social Security. The same people who can't understand that investing excess Social Security funds in government securities is good and reasonable. Self-righteous patriots who enthusiastically support our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but can find neither country on a map. Think of all those polls showing American's staggering lack of knowledge about history, science, politics and geography. The worst of the worst, the most ignorant of the ignorant, are the conservative base.

For years they have tried to make legitimate their gun fetishism by shouting "Second amendment. Second amendment." Knowing one-half of one tenth of the Bill of Rights is not constitutional scholarship. Nor is expanding their parroted phrase list to include "original intent." These are people who are wrong by a full century when asked to put the Civil War on a time line. People who confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. People who can't name the three branches of federal government, and can't explain how the US government differs from that of Britain. Michele Bachmann -- congresswoman, Tea Party call girl, and Presidential aspirant -- goes deep stupid when talking about slavery's legal history.

The right wingers can't tell the difference between intellectual conversation and speaking in tongues. Enough.

Madness

Yo, Republicans!

This is one of yours, not one of ours. He is a registered Republican. He really believes the right wing blather about returning to the gold standard and government mind control and self-protection through grammatical absurdities.

Forget all the pundits debating vitriolic talk, climates of hatred, and nudge-nudge wink-wink incitements to violence. We must instead realize that ideology built entirely of lies and cruelty can succeed only by attracting this guy and thousands like him. Who else is going to buy that crap? Who else can be goaded into sputtering apoplectic rage about a heath care law that guarantees insurance coverage to children despite pre-existing conditions, allows parents to keep their children insured until they are 26, and repairs the "doughnut hole" in Medicare drug payments? For crying out loud, the designated hitter rule is more controversial. Except to this guy and his Play-Doh-brained ilk.

Screeching Liberal

Charles, Charles, Charles. What did I do to deserve such treatment?

The far left is foaming at the mouth.

The near-apoplectic level of agita within the liberal screeching class over President Obama’s tax-cut compromise has exposed a seismic crack in the Democratic monolith — outspoken liberal Democrats on one side and barely audible moderate Democrats on the other.

Screeching Liberal. Wow! Driftglass and Blue Gal had it easy. "Professional Left" could be co-opted proudly. Lucky them. But, Charles, you really did it. Screeching liberal is such a put down. No turnaround is possible. My tonsils hurt from just reading the label. Imagine what will happen when I watch YouTube clips of Bernie Sanders mini-filibuster while shouting, "Screeching liberal. SCREECHING LIBERAL. SCREECHING GODDAMN LIBERAL."

I don't know if I can keep going for all 8 1/2 hours. No matter. The first 13 minutes shown here should get me good and hoarse. Hell, Big Brother only required two minutes a day.


Then, maybe, I could have a meaningful, but whispered, conversation with one of Charles Blow's moderate Democrats. We could pop a couple of brewskies. Sure would be good for my sore throat. I would even be willing to reach across the class divide and drink a Bud Light instead of one of my usual bicoastal, effete snob beers like Ol' Liberal or Screeching Pale Ale or DFH Porter. It would be a two-guy beer summit. And, we could watch Bernie Sanders Senate speech together. It would be fun. We could laugh at his ethnic Brooklyn accent. We could speculate about his need to pee, or wonder what would happen if he let go of the lectern. And, we might just listen the words. And I would ask the barely audible moderate Democrat if he disagreed with the Senator on anything. If he thought it at all reasonable to maintain -- or increase -- the economic divide. Or, how much he would give up so that Sam Walton's family could inherit all of Mr. Sam's money. And, I would ask him to point out the un-American radicals: are they the people who think like Bernie Sanders, or people who support the Republican agenda.

As to Charles Blow, I remind him that screeching liberals have watched the right-wing lie machine grow for 30 years. We have watched real wages in America decline. The middle class hung on by its fingertips. For a while, the shift to two-wage-earner families kept the wolf at bay. Then, the middle class went into debt by extracting the ever-increasing value of their homes to pay monthly bills or send kids to college. All the while, conservatives promised that reducing taxes on the wealthy would benefit everyone. The economy would grow. More jobs would be available. Thirty years of lies. American productivity increased. Nearly all of the gain was extracted as business profits. Almost none was returned to employees. People worked longer hours for less money.

Every careful study showed that Reagan and his ilk were wrong. Cutting taxes for the wealthy benefits only the wealthy. The money is not re-invested. It is saved. The national debt increases; the middle class falls further behind.

Speaking this truth to power -- including to the President of the United States no matter his political circumstance -- is fully justified. I offer this example from Martin Luther King, jr's, letter from Birmingham jail in 1963.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied.

Where are the Clergy?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Mourning Joe

The politburo chose Comrade Morning Joe to begin the anti-Palin attack. Makes sense. Nearly everyone else is on the Fox payroll and Comrade General Secretary Comrade Murdoch will never allow dissension in his ranks. We know what happened when Comrade Political Secretary Comrade Rove lifted Christine O'Donnell's skirt just enough to show her cloven feet to his TV audience. Palin brings in too much hard currency to permit Fox-based criticism. Even a mild tongue cluck in defense of Hero of the Revolution Comrade Ronald Reagan would be inappropriate.

So, the politburo is left with Comrade Scarborough. Maybe they got Peggy Noonan to help hoist him out of the trench. I can see it now: Okay, Comrade, why don't you put down that cup of coffee? Won't be needing it where you are going. Bayonet fixed? Good. Now, big step up and start running toward those Tea-Party-Fox-News guns. Remember, the Politburo will likely cover your back from down here in the trench. We are all very proud of you, Comrade. This heroic action might even win you a Double-Cross.

Oh, Shut Up

The home security company called at 6:24AM. My mother had pressed her medical alarm button. She was in trouble. She needed help immediately.

I pay $308 per year to that private company for 24/7 monitoring. In order to pay their bill, I must first earn $397.29. Here's the breakdown:

Gross salary: $ 387.29
Federal income tax withholding: -45.70
Social security: -21.56
Medicare: - 4.47
State income tax withholding: - 7.56
======
$ 308.00

After getting the phone call I ran next door to my mothers' house. She was having a stroke. Paramedics arrived ten minutes later. Four men. One only slightly smaller than a beer truck. The men lugged backpacks containing oxygen, a portable EKG, an automated blood pressure cuff, and more. They asked me about my mother's medical history. What medication is she taking? Has she been ill recently? Allergies? What is normal for her? Could she walk unaided? Her left side seems weak; is that recent? Lots of questions. Except one: the paramedics never asked about money. Didn't want to know if she had paid some special ambulance fee. Didn't even ask if she was up to date with her property taxes. They focused only on helping my mother.

The county employees put my mother into a county ambulance and drove her to the hospital on county, state, and federal roads. Most of her hospital care will be paid by Medicare, a federal program. Some expenses will be paid by supplemental health insurance that my mother buys.

Here is a tangible result. Cause and effect. We pay taxes; paramedics show up when we dial 911.
And, now I ask all the loud-mouthed, funny-hatted Tea Partiers about their endless anti-tax whining: What is your plan? Seriously. After you innumerate dolts do your masters' bidding, and shrink government to the point where you can drown it in a bathtub, what will be your plan for sweet old ladies who suffer strokes and need medical help quickly? Please tell me.

freedumb of the press

Had a weird experience with a reporter for a local paper. The set-up is too long to explain, but he ended up interviewing me about how science is funded in the US. I explained that the Department of Defense has, since World War II, supported much of the scientific research in the country including fundamental work performed at universities. My point had more to do with public indifference than questions of war-related vs. peaceful applications of the science. In other countries, government support of technology is often clear. For example, Airbus was created with support from the British, French and German government to challenge American domination of the aircraft industry. The intention was made obvious to everyone. In America, much of the commercial aviation industry has received government help through military contracting. The technology developed for defense applications gets transferred to the civilian side of the industry. We don't debate the suitability of the government support. Maybe it would sound too much like socialism. Similar government (often Department of Defense) support has helped American microelectronics and computer industries, etc.

My company, I told the reporter, manufactures test & measurement equipment, and does contract research including work performed for the US government. Some of that Federal contracting comes from DoD. Our work on lasers could, if successful, lead to better clocks for optical computers and medical diagnostics through analysis of trace chemicals in exhaled breath. Yes, the military would like optical computers and fast medical diagnostic methods, but so would many civilians.

I thought I was clear. Then, I received the following e-mail from the reporter:

I have one more question I didn't think to ask you when we were speaking: Despite that the state of research in the US dictates that scientific research is largely funded by defense agencies, and that you are seemingly forced to exercise this only option if you are to do any work yourself, do you still feel any sense of guilt that you're receiving defense money to research products that, even though they may not be directly used in acts of violence, are still ultimately used for purposes of war?

Sigh. I hate the oversimplifications -- that I am "forced to exercise this only option" -- and that products not "directly used in acts of violence" are tainted if used by the military. Here is what I wrote in reply:

Thanks for the follow-up question. First, the facetious answer: I'm Jewish and was raised to feel guilty about everything. Now, a serious reply that requires a long answer because morality is never as clear was one wishes.

I see a direct connection between the Federal taxes that I pay and war. I could withhold some portion of my income tax as a way of clearing my conscience. But, I pay my full share because tax evasion would lead to severe consequences for me and my family, with little chance of altering military action. Is that moral cowardice?

If I came up with a new technology for detecting chemical or biological warfare agents, I would definitely accept DoD money to develop that detection method. It could save peoples' lives. If, on the other hand, I thought up a new method for making chemical or biological warfare agents, I would never tell a soul. If I came up with a new way to detect nuclear proliferation, I would accept DoD money to develop that technology. Imagine what it would have meant to be able to refute Condoleeza Rice's "mushroom cloud" warning prior to the Iraq war. If I invented a fast portable method for analyzing head trauma, I would accept military money to develop the technology knowing that it would likely be used in warfare. It could save the lives of soldiers and civilians. If, in contrast, I invented a way of reading peoples' memories, I would shut down my work and move on to something else.

Modern life lived amidst modern technology creates many reasons to feel guilty:

• The first computer network -- the intranet -- was developed by the military, and the armed forces uses the internet now. Should I disconnect my computer from the web?
  
• One of the earliest successful commercial jet liners, the Boeing 707, was a civilian version of a jet developed for the air force for aerial refueling. In fact, much of the commercial aviation industry has benefited enormously from military R&D contracts. Should I fly when I travel?
  
• Technology used for telecommunications satellites and the rockets that launch them also have a military past. Should I disconnect my telephone?
• Laser rangefinders were developed for the military. Should I use one when playing golf?
  

You get paid by a newspaper that runs paid advertising for unproven (and, in some cases, disproved) therapies. Do you feel guilty accepting your paycheck?

I am thoughtful about the research contracts that I accept and the possible long-term consequences of the work. So, no, I do not feel guilty nor ashamed of my DoD-supported research. Filling up my car with gasoline is much more troubling.

I thought it a reasonable answer. A few days later the reporter called. He wanted me to again answer his "Do I feel guilty question," but to do it over the phone. I was perplexed because he did not refer to my e-mail. Yes, he verified, he had received the message, but he had been told to get me to also reply by phone. I repeated that I had answered his question by e-mail. He repeated that he had been told to have me answer over the phone. Too weird. My computer was in the lab taking data. I could not get access to my e-mail to re-read exactly what I had written. I again said that I had answered his question by e-mail. He hung up. Maybe I killed the story! That would be good.