Ross Douthat pens another excellent column in yesterday’s New York Times. He observes that “obsessing about the paranoia of the masses is often a way for American elites to gloss over their own, entirely nonsymbolic failures.” For example, ”Today, establishment liberals would much rather fret about the insanity of the Republican base than reckon with the unpopularity of Barack Obama’s domestic program.”
For a good example, see this recent episode of Bloggingheads.tv, featuring Michelle Goldberg (The Daily Beast) and Sally Steenland (Center for American Progress) talking each other into ever-higher levels of paranoia against the American people, based on gross misinterpretations of the Tea Party movement.
Orin Kerr says:
Douthat’s column also mentions by name, and links to, a VC post by our own Ilya Somin.
September 6, 2010, 8:11 pmTony Sidaway says:
I think you’re taking liberties here, by referring to the fringe religious right and the tea-partiers in the bloggingheads TV talk as “The American people”.
Also you use this term “elites” in a weird way. Do you simply mean “thinking people who happen to disagree with me?”
By the way I’m British and from my perspective there seems to be a lot of paranoia, overt racism, and frankly inexcusable behavior on the American right lately, and I think it reflects badly on the Republican Party that they have tended to encourage such paranoid behavior. I guess that makes me a member of one of these “American elites?”
September 6, 2010, 8:15 pmisland says:
Well, I think the president is leading the paranoia when the president says native Americans are intolerant bigots, clinging to their guns and religion. He doesn’t say imported islamists are clinging to their religion when they are putting a victory mosque at ground zero where airplane parts and bodies damaged the building. Instead he claims it is freedom of religion.
Then he imagines that some people are “treating him like a dog” when he goes off his teleprompter.
September 6, 2010, 8:23 pmPierre Corneille says:
No man is an “island,” a tea party unto himself.
September 6, 2010, 8:26 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Most of the racist behavior seen by the left is completely of their own imagination. I was speaking with a Black member of my congregation last week. He is very well educated and works in a high position in one of the largest companies in the world. He is an Obama supporter and is extremely agitated by the “tea party” movement. When asked what his greatest fears are, he suggested that, if in power, they might ship all Blacks back to Africa. I was fairly stunned by that statement and I told him so.
It is an article of faith among leftists that the primary motivation of “conservatives” is racism. When your only tool is a hammer….
September 6, 2010, 8:27 pmCornellian says:
I don’t equate the Tea Party, or any other political group, with the American people.
September 6, 2010, 8:29 pmElemenope says:
It is no great shock that the rank-and-file of one end of the political spectrum tend to view those of the other with, at best, wariness, overestimating the threat they pose to cherished beliefs and sacred cows. It is also generally easier to see and comment on the shortcomings of adversaries than on those of allies, and blame those adversaries for misadventures rather than on the ineffectuality of those who are friendly.
I guess what I’m saying is, while Douthat put it fairly well, is what he is saying a revelation to anyone?
September 6, 2010, 8:35 pmisland says:
So who do you equate with the American people?
September 6, 2010, 8:37 pmroad2serfdom says:
I am shocked, shocked, that a British person would oppose the tea party movement!
September 6, 2010, 8:38 pmCassandra says:
Until Ross Douthat takes on Alex Jones, he is only tilting at strawmen.
September 6, 2010, 8:43 pmPJens says:
Elites are people who impose their desires without regard of the input or wishes of the majority of the constituents. Examples from the current Congress and Executive branches include: Health care reform, ILLEGAL immigration policy, and the official position on building a mosque near Ground Zero.
Elites are those people who think they are better than the operational masses. Elites like to watch other people work, and comment upon the workers disgruntlement.
I for one am tired of rowing the boat while non producing “elites” complain about my rowing and demand I ought to be taxed more.
If all people would concern themselves with their own work and not obsess about what others are doing – reference the mentioned NYT article – society would be better off.
September 6, 2010, 8:45 pmElemenope says:
So who do you equate with the American people?
Er, the American People?
September 6, 2010, 8:46 pmnick056 says:
My biggest problem with that column is that Douthat works hard to avoid calling a lot of people liars although he admits they’re being dishonest. If you’re asked if Bush knew about 9/11 in advance — not if he should have known, not if he took sufficient action on intelligence presented to him in August 2001 — but whether he knew in advance, and you say yes, and you don’t believe it, really, you’re actually lying to the pollster. This practice makes it difficult to judge the breadth and depth of political opinions.
But if Douthat writes a column in which he says respondents habitually lie to pollsters for the pleasure or perceived benefit of affiming certain propositions, it further complicates the notion that elites shouldn’t spend time beating up on people for doing this, since, after all, lying is a bad thing, and lying about serious issues — even if your individual dishonesty is of little consequence — indicates a pretty serious flaw in one’s approach to politics.
In fact, it’s tricky to propose that we should worry about the popularity of the Democratic program when we concede that high rate of bad responses may corrupt the instruments we use to measure that popularity.
September 6, 2010, 8:48 pmCornellian says:
It is an article of faith among leftists that the primary motivation of “conservatives” is racism.
You forgot stupidity. Either way, the rhetoric in the other direction isn’t much different.
September 6, 2010, 8:48 pmnewrouter says:
yea you are a transnational progressive which makes you an “american elite”
September 6, 2010, 8:48 pmElemenope says:
Elites are people who impose their desires without regard of the input or wishes of the majority of the constituents. Examples from the current Congress and Executive branches include: Health care reform, ILLEGAL immigration policy, and the official position on building a mosque near Ground Zero.
Wouldn’t that list also have included, at one time and place or another: ending slavery, civil rights for women, minorities, and the propertyless, and relaxing gun laws?
Just because a thing is unpopular doesn’t mean it’s wrong. People are, as usual, quite free to vote the fellow out if they don’t like what he or she did while representing them and care enough about the particular issue.
September 6, 2010, 8:49 pmisland says:
Well, I thought he was saying that Democrats are not American people, among others.
September 6, 2010, 8:51 pmTony Sidaway says:
Careful, friend. Just because the revolution was a war against British despotism and unjustified taxation, does not mean that modern British people are opposed to the principles over which it was fought. My problem with the modern-day Tea Party is that it is a politically undeveloped mass movement based, for the most part, on paranoia.
I’m sorry I don’t buy the facile left-right parallels that are drawn here. I accept professor Malhotra’s finding that Democrats appear to be much more antisemitic than Republicans, but it’s a bit of a leap from there to looking at the massive amount of right wing paranoia before us.
September 6, 2010, 8:59 pmJoe says:
This was all a little ridiculous. But of course it was really an attempt to turn the tables on liberals, who have spent the last two years linking conservative rhetoric to hate crimes and antigovernment maniacs. (It’s a hard habit to break: the liberal site ThinkProgress.org quickly suggested that James Lee was actually a right-wing extremist, because his hostility to “parasitic human infants” extended to the children of illegal immigrants.)
Yes, this doesn’t generalize too much AT ALL. Also, it is amazing that someone who referenced “anchor baby filth” was thought of as a “right wing extremist.” But, the linked article doesn’t even SAY THAT. It says cites something the guy said and notes its “troubling resemblance” to certain right wing extremists. That is, his manifesto sounds like what such groups say. The “ridiculous” nature of that statement given the discussion provided at the link is unclear to me.
Consider the apparently widespread notion that George W. Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
A small number of people think this; I’m unsure how “widespread” it is, um “apparently.”
In the Bush era attacking the conspiracy theories of the “angry left”
or, rather, attacking the angry left … or labeling anyone who disagreed with them as “DFH” or a member of the “angry left.”
Today, establishment liberals would much rather fret about the insanity of the Republican base than reckon with the unpopularity of Barack Obama’s domestic program.
who would this be? The “angry left” at least fret about both.
The talk of “symbolic beliefs” and such has some truth to it, but an “excellent column” would be written a bit better.
September 6, 2010, 9:00 pmnewrouter says:
ending slavery – 600,000 died so some folks were for something
civil rights for women – they passed an amendment to the constitution!! might be popular
and relaxing gun laws – through the courts to get back to the constitution which the people support
so fail
September 6, 2010, 9:10 pmnewrouter says:
nice sneer where’s your facts?
September 6, 2010, 9:13 pmTony Sidaway says:
Yes, I’m familiar with the language of American right wing populism. That it is a misapplication of the term “elite” and grossly misrepresents the facts.
This June, for instance, Gallup said 49% of respondents thought the passing of healthcare legislation was “a good thing”, and in July more Americans said immigration should be increased or kept the same than said it should be decreased, and a solid 57% said immigration was a good thing for America.
As for Park 51 center, that’s obviously a local zoning issue. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, as you must be aware. If the local zoning authorities rejected the application after due consideration that would be fine. Due process, you know.
September 6, 2010, 9:15 pmGuy says:
What? People on the left are attacking the right with vague stereotypes? Quick! Let’s attack the left with vague stereotypes! Republicans are demagogues? Oh yeah? well Democrats are elites! How do you like them apples!
Is it my imagination, or are political discussions devolving into mad-lib style form arguments? Come on people, let’s get some new material here. I’m not being entertained.
September 6, 2010, 9:21 pmManju says:
It was a pretty high percentage at one point, and interestingly //ed birtherism when broken down by party. See here, for summary:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/.a/6a00d83451d25c69e20120a550f15c970c-popup
BTW, the question was phrased this way:
“There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is: People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.”
September 6, 2010, 9:26 pmTony Sidaway says:
That the movement is “politically undeveloped” can be inferred from two things: the political immaturity of the candidates and their vulnerability on consensual issues where they hold extreme positions is one, the lack of a formal party platform is another, though that is changing.
That the movement is based on paranoia can be inferred from the political views espoused by its supporters, and by the views promoted by its key figures.
September 6, 2010, 9:27 pmnewrouter says:
or an in your face islamic fu. but you brights like your “new” religion. ask prince chuckles
September 6, 2010, 9:27 pmExternality says:
For all the faux-outrage about the Tea Party, the Left acted far, far worse during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, early 1990s, and during the George W. Bush administration. After years of “deconstructing” America and proclaiming that “dissent is patriotic,” the Left seems unable to tolerate even a small fraction of the criticism and abuse that they inflicted on others.
During the administration of Bush II, the Left insisted that the 9/11 was either staged or allowed to happen, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both illegal, and supported soldiers who refused to deploy anywhere. (One sailor was even cheered when he refused to deploy to help the post-tsunami relief efforts because he thought they were an insult to Islam.) Left wing authors wrote docudramas about the the fictitious assassination of President Bush. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-president-bush-assassinated-in-new-tv-docudrama.do Other leftists compared Bush to Adolf Hitler, while the Leftists also stated that the US needed military officers similar to those who tried to assassinate Hitler.
Leftist Cold war spies such as Theodore Hall (aka Theodore Alvin Holtzberg) and the Rosenberg spy ring gave the Soviet Union American radar and nuclear technology because they did not want America to have military superiority. Theodore Hall, in 1998, explained his actions as follows, “I decided to give atomic secrets to the Russians because it seemed to me that it was important that there should be no monopoly, which could turn one nation into a menace and turn it loose on the world as … as Nazi Germany developed. There seemed to be only one answer to what one should do. The right thing to do was to act to break the American monopoly.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall#Statements_in_1990s During and after the Cold War, the news media (including PBS) insisted that the Rosenbergs were innocent and/or acting to protect the world from American aggression. Even after the publication of the VENONA intercepts, and confessions by the Rosenbergs’ co-conspirator Morton Sobell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Sobell they are still viewed on the Left as victims of American xenophobia and paranoia.
During the Vietnam war, for example, some of the more radical antiwar groups advocated that the soldiers not only disobey their officers, but “frag” them as well. Leftist groups such as the Weatherman Underground, led by Obama friend Bill Ayers, blew up or burned down buildings around the country. “Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Years_underground Hundreds of thousands of Leftist protesters flew the North Vietnamese flag and cheered soldiers who refused to serve in Vietnam or anywhere else. Jane Fonda infamously sat on a Soviet-made antiaircraft gun in North Vietnam while denouncing US soldiers and government officials as “war criminals” and went on to ridicule American POWs being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton.
Whether it was atomic espionage,arson, protests, or the incitement to mutiny, the Left has insisted that “dissent is patriotic” and that “deconstructing” the American government is essential to progress. Obviously, the Fox news has a long way to go if it is to be as “progressive” as the Left. (Of course, when Republicans criticized President Clinton’s bombing of Serbia, which he conducted even after he could not gain the support of either Congress or the UN, the Republicans were deemed “unpatriotic” by the Left.)
September 6, 2010, 9:29 pmnewrouter says:
keep sneering it is fun to observe your idiotic comments in real time.
September 6, 2010, 9:31 pmyea paranoia is asking for smaller gov’t and less taxes and spending. only loser elitist think that.
road2serfdom says:
“…and in July more Americans said immigration should be increased or kept the same than said it should be decreased, and a solid 57% said immigration was a good thing for America.”
Do you have any evidence the tea party supporters think differently? I pretty sure most oppose illegal immigration but that an entirely different issue.
September 6, 2010, 9:32 pmElemenope says:
so fail
My point was that at certain points in time in certain places ALL of those things that I listed were opposed by a majority of constituents in many districts. Once upon not too long ago, a legislator in Arkansas or Tennessee could run on a platform of school segregation, and an opponent who didn’t agree could expect to lose on that issue alone. Because some bravely took an unpopular stand, both in and out of government, opinions slowly changed.
So, um, counter-fail.
September 6, 2010, 9:34 pmnewrouter says:
we haven’t seen the use of blunt political power used to try to transform the country. all that stuff you listed happen over years not months
September 6, 2010, 9:44 pmnewrouter says:
so still fail
September 6, 2010, 9:45 pmCareless says:
Conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration is popular, but stupid (at best).
no, No, yes, no, and no.
But they were also favored by a majority of the “elites” back then, too, so I’m not sure what your point is.
September 6, 2010, 9:47 pmByomtov says:
Douthat wrote:
In the Bush era attacking the conspiracy theories of the “angry left” made it easier for conservatives to avert their eyes from the disaster the Iraq war had become. Today, establishment liberals would much rather fret about the insanity of the Republican base than reckon with the unpopularity of Barack Obama’s domestic program.
Note that Kopel omitted the first sentence. Wonder why.
September 6, 2010, 9:47 pmnewrouter says:
50 years ago? do you have anything more recent?
September 6, 2010, 9:48 pmTony Sidaway says:
Immigration in general, some 54% of strong tea party supporters say, is “changing the culture
in the U.S. for the worse” Among the general population only 32% agree with them. So yes I’ve got evidence to support that.
My source is a poll performed by Washington State University in May of this year.
And the tea partiers also seem to be distinguishable on the issue of the Arizona immigration law. The Washington State poll found that 88% of strong supporters of the tea party movement supported that law, while a bare majority of the general population supported it. It is for that reason that I tend to infer that the party appeals to paranoia over illegal immigration (and indeed to have a negative view of immigration in general, in strong contrast to most Americans).
Just because the American people are already rather paranoid over illegal immigration, does not mean that the tea party movement does not tap into and magnify on that paranoia.
But that would be just one data point. In fact some 50% of voters agree that “Welcoming immigrants to US society, even immigrants who entered Illegally makes America better off in the long run”. Just 23% of strong tea party supporters agreed.
On gay rights, faced with the question “Compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power”, 52% of strong tea partiers and 25% of the general public agreed.
73% of strong tea partiers disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy of engagement with Muslim countries. Just 33% of the general public do. I wouldn’t make so much of this one by itself, but given the circumstances I am leaning towards putting another tick in the “paranoia” column.
September 6, 2010, 9:58 pmnewrouter says:
yo tony we have the msm or more succinctly mfm spreading your lies over here . we don’t need you.
September 6, 2010, 10:03 pmTony Sidaway says:
Pure paranoia. I rest my case.
September 6, 2010, 10:06 pmmack says:
The elites – those in the top one percent of income – the top one percent of personal wealth and who attend or attended the top one percent of colleges.
They disproportionately run the government and the political parties in addition to running corporations. Out of touch because they support policies that destroy the middle class and continue the trend towards greater and greater income and wealth disparity and that tend to entrench the poor in poverty and the rich in power.
Most Americans could care less if rich people are rich – what they are concerned about is the destruction of the middle class – the ability of 95 percent of the population to have a home, a car, an education, and retirement and some financial security. That is increasingly going away. There are three primary reasons for this – free trade which makes us workers compete with third would workers – illegal immimgration which has cost domestic construction and union jobs throught the outright hiring of illegal immigrants or through large corporations subcontracting work and the subcontractors hire illegals and the increasing cost of energy.
For the middle class to survive there has to be the production of stable long term cheap energy to allow a lower cost of living and manufacturing in the us along with rebuilding of infrastructure roads and electronic, an end to illegal immigration to protect domestic work and jobs – creating a demand and thus higher wages to us workers – and cheaper and easier access to education to allow workers to recieve useful employment skills quickly and inexpensively.
Of the above only roads and some electronic infrastructure has been seriously addressed. The rest is ignored by both parties – no national energy policy since the 70′s and the first so called energy crisis to produce cheap energy – no national policy to really stop illegal immigration – and the cost of education continues to climb and the efficiency of training as to the availabilty of classes and the ability to complete the training quickly lags.
The only thing both parties agreed on was free trade which accelerated the loss of middle class jobs.
Those are real problems for people in fly over country. And problems that neither party seems serious about addressing.
September 6, 2010, 10:15 pmReality Check says:
You have to forgive the President. I’m pretty sure that his only interaction with dogs occur through his acquaintance with Bo the Portuguese Water Dog… and he has it pretty good.
September 6, 2010, 10:33 pmnewrouter says:
no you rest your transnational progg credentials. hey tony israel is a freedom loving country. the palis are not. put that in your pipe and smoke it.
September 6, 2010, 10:41 pmReality Check says:
I think you confuse “paranoia” with “different groups of people have different views on different issues.”
A divergent % pro or con for a particular issue tells you nothing of how grounded those differences are in sound reasoning and rational processes.
If anything, you prove nothing other than your own paranoia about “tea partiers.”
I will submit, however, that my paranoia about “Tony Sidaway” is at an all-time high.
September 6, 2010, 10:49 pmA. Criminal says:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141560/Amid-Immigration-Debate-Americans-Views-Ease-Slightly.aspx
September 6, 2010, 11:06 pmJuly 27, 2010
Americans remain more likely to say immigration should be decreased (45%) rather than kept at its present level (34%) or increased (17%), but the gap between the two most popular options has narrowed from a year ago.
The Gallup survey conducted July 8-11, 2010, marks an easing of views from last year, when Americans more clearly favored less immigration over the status quo, and a return to the more divided views of 2007.
Careless says:
[citation needed]
September 7, 2010, 12:06 amSally says:
This post needs some Buffalo Springfield. I’ll start us off.
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear…
September 7, 2010, 12:07 amCornellian says:
Once upon not too long ago, a legislator in Arkansas or Tennessee could run on a platform of school segregation
50 years ago? do you have anything more recent?
How about 2004 and a state court judge and wannabe governor of Alabama campaigning against the repeal of a provision in Alabama’s state constitution requiring separate schools for “white and colored children?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html
September 7, 2010, 12:57 amCareless says:
So what office did he win with that platform? And what about all the other office holders that make that a common event instead of an extremely unusual occurrence that I’m guessing didn’t really happen?
September 7, 2010, 1:22 amsialnd says:
Well Obama did name his dog BO after himself, so perhaps the prez is paranoid about people talking about him like a dog when in reality people are talking about a real dog named BO and not about the president.
September 7, 2010, 6:39 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Did you read the article?
“Leading opponents, such as Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles, said they did not object to removing the passage about separate schools for “white and colored children.”"
September 7, 2010, 7:05 amBrett Bellmore says:
Scarcely surprising, given that illegal immigration has, in fact, declined since then, as a result of the depressed economy. So some opposition to illegal immigration has dropped off at the margin, but the poll still shows a significant public opposition to illegal immigration.
September 7, 2010, 7:40 amFloridan says:
It seems to me that many of the comments here confirm the paranoia of, if not the right, at least those who posted them.
September 7, 2010, 8:31 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » OUR PARANOID ruling class. Related: The secret to Maslow’s success: “Maslow was influential bec… says:
[...] OUR PARANOID ruling class. [...]
September 7, 2010, 9:01 amJ says:
“I’m British and from my perspective there seems to be a lot of paranoia, overt racism, and frankly inexcusable behavior on the American right lately”
Examples?
September 7, 2010, 9:04 amCargosquid says:
Tony,
you wouldn’t happen to be a Labour Party supporter, would you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
September 7, 2010, 9:05 amDoDoGuRu says:
Upwards of 30% of Democrats seems kinda widespread.
September 7, 2010, 9:10 amOrenWithAnE says:
Indeed. Thanks to the Tea Party, Harry Reid may yet survive election day to lead the Senate for another 2 years.
September 7, 2010, 9:16 amTed Joy says:
Gee, Tony, a guy has to be really quick on the comment to say something about your — shall we say — rather
interesting perceptions of America.
I’m sure you spend a lot of time among the great unwashed — as we’ve learned to call ourselves from our betters.
But out here in the Midwest — and did I say I live on a farm on the edge of an old rust-belt city — I’ve spent
a bit of time over the past year with both Tea Partiers and ordinary folks (they’re not different, by the way)and
I have yet to see the paranoia or overt racism that you talk about.
Perhaps you could give me some examples?
As for the “inexcusable behavior” — what in the world are you talking about? Perhaps a lack of respect for — and doffing of our caps at — the bicoastal elites?
September 7, 2010, 9:16 amDr. K says:
Mr. Sidaway,
So let’s be clear. Let’s suppose the UK had a situation where people were entering the country illegally and the government could not be bothered to enforce the laws on the books. One of the political subdivisions (I don’t know what they are called there) has seen a large jump in crime and cost to taxpayers in the form of increased policing and other social services, and has taken it upon itself to pass a law that says, “Damnit, it the central government won’t enforce these laws, then we will do the job for them.”
That’s paranoia?
I am also sure that people in the UK illegally cannot leagally apply for jobs, and if they do, the employers are subject to serious fines. Then the government says it is not permitted for employers to demand that people show proof they have permission to work in the country (the US I-9 form).
According to you, that is also paranoia.
I think you need to reread the definition of paranoia. And try not to move your lips too much.
September 7, 2010, 9:18 amDantes says:
Sure are a lot of self styled experts here on the Tea Party, who aren’t.
September 7, 2010, 9:25 amsteve in SoCal says:
What has really happened in the last two years is that the tool chest of the left has been exposed as bare. Prior to Obama’s election, due to demographics, pressure and constant spin, many blacks did not join the Republican Party giving the “elites” the opportunity to call the right racist, which the MSM happily played along. Following his election, it is virtually impossible to say that America as a whole is a racist nation. Well, as a whole and the Right being part of it, it now becomes much more difficult to paint an entire party as racist, though they do try.
Now, given that the stimulus bill and other legislation by the Dems and Obama has not produced the results they said it would (skip the mantra of ‘well, it would have been worse”) and the Dems cannot argue economic policy. This takes away a major plank for the Dems, the so called “elite” taling about their policies as being able to lift up the downtrodden, lower part of the economic ladder when said policies aren’t even keeping the boat afloat for the middle class.
What is an “elite” to do when the supposedly smart people have shown that they have no plan other than to take other people’s money and redistribute it? Say there are evil forces out there preventing something happening and that more gov’t is needed to combat this . . . racism, though they not mention it aloud. . . If that doesn’t work, tell people others talk about you like a dog.
Of course if you’re a real conspiratist, him saying he is being called a dog is a might bad thing in Islam. Somebody get him a whambulance.
September 7, 2010, 9:42 amRob Crawford says:
And… you expose your ignorance of the beliefs of those who disagree with you. No one denies them the right to do it; we think it’s a stupid, rude thing to do.
September 7, 2010, 9:42 amOrenWithAnE says:
Except of course that illegals in the US are net contributors to the budget because they pay taxes but cannot collect benefits. Without them, Social Security goes bust considerably sooner.
September 7, 2010, 9:44 amOrenWithAnE says:
Which is par for the course in lower Manhattan.
September 7, 2010, 9:49 amAureliano says:
As for Park 51 center, that’s obviously a local zoning issue.
Oh obviously.
And Tea Party rallies are just a local permitting issue.
The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, as you must be aware.
The Constitution also guarantees the right to free assembly.
If you conceed that the Tea Party is about more than just free assembly and local ordinances, then perhaps the GROUND ZERO MOSQUE is about more than just freedom of religion and local ordinances.
September 7, 2010, 9:50 amNancy says:
I watched as much of the Blogging Heads as I could bear. One thing hasn’t changed since Obama was elected: leftists find the actions of their Republican neighbors “scary”.
September 7, 2010, 9:53 amDr. K says:
OWAE:
Pay taxes? Really? When paid in CASH under the table, show me where they pay taxes. Alert: SALES taxes do not count.
Way to miss the point. I am talking about unenforcement of illegal immigration and punishing employers who are required “by law” (pesky business, that) to verify ability to legally work in the US and threatened with legal action if they do so.
What the hell part of ILLEGAL do you not understand? If you have a law degree, ask for a refund because you obviously did not learn that laws are there for a reason.
September 7, 2010, 9:57 amMike G says:
Elemenpope– the problem with your point that certain things now seen as good were once widely opposed is that they all changed because a large portion of the populace came to see them as good, not because a politician forced them on a public unutterably opposed to them. The process may have taken a while and been messy (emancipation didn’t happen until well after a large chunk of the populace attempted to remove itself from the voting body) but still, they happened because public sentiment shifted their way.
I can only think of one major social change which took place over the objections of most of the public. Prohibition was passed as a constitutional amendment because that allowed its proponents to bypass urban majorities in the House. That was clever, but it didn’t really work out that well in the end…
September 7, 2010, 9:57 amwilky says:
OrenWithAnE, I see your lack of principles are showing. As long as you get your cut your willing to look the other way. Nice.
September 7, 2010, 10:06 amKen Arromdee says:
I would suggest an alternative explanation: the Tea Party doesn’t include many leftists and just removing the leftists from the group would make this percentage go up. In other words, it isn’t that the tea party is particularly extreme, it’s that they happen not to include a group that is particularly extreme in the other way.
September 7, 2010, 10:08 amCG says:
I think you misunderstand the so-called “Tea Party”. There is no “Tea Party”. There are “Tea Parties”, and the views of these parties seem to run the spectrum from “Obama is a Muslim plant” to “Obama is a nice guy who is messing up the Economy because of a naive reliance on Krugmannites and their interpretation of Keynes”.
September 7, 2010, 10:10 amKen Arromdee says:
One question here is of what level of detail counts as a social change. For instance, does busing to end segregation count as a social change all by itself?
September 7, 2010, 10:14 amblue says:
I spoke at a Tea Party event and my liberal friends couldn’t believe I would speak or hang around with such racists… knowing full well that I have dated women of different races.
My response, “Guess, what? You are right. I wouldn’t speak or hang around with a bunch of racists. Perhaps you should attend an event before you judge.”
September 7, 2010, 10:30 amMike G says:
“One question here is of what level of detail counts as a social change. For instance, does busing to end segregation count as a social change all by itself?”
Well, the original post seemed to be pretty high level– slavery, desegregation, etc. I would call busing a tactic and integration the desired end, unless you think there’s positive value of its own in the act of driving kids all over town every morning.
September 7, 2010, 10:46 amsetnaffa says:
Susan B Anthony was a Republican…
September 7, 2010, 11:37 ammack says:
If you demonize your enemy you can define the terms and avoid debating the real issues. Call a progressive or liberal a communist and you can avoid dealing with their arguments and concerns – same thing with calling a conservative or a member of the tea party movement a racist. In any large movement you may find extremists and paranoids and therefore you can claim the exception is the rule and paint your enemy as a communist or a racist.
I attended one tea party event – to see what it was about – in the crowd and on the stage I did not hear one racist remark. I heard very little about immigration – I heard a lot about taxes, limited constitutional government, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom, and health care. Most of the talk was about taxes, limited government, and healthcare. Obviously, most of the attendees were not happy with their government – not to many nice things were said about either the democratic or republican parties – though a few individual republican candidates who verbally supported the tea party were given positives. There was a big emphasis put on voting and registering to vote and to vote in primaries not just general elections.
The truth is that the national democratic party sees no positives coming from the tea party movement for their candidates or for their agenda (they are correct) – therefore they and their supporters are only interested in marginalizing and destroying the movement as much as possible – describing the tea party as racist and extremist helps to deflect criticism of democratic policies and works to marginalize the tea party movement. People don’t want to be thought of as racists nutbags – and the democrats have somewhat suceeded in marginalizing the tea party movement particularily amongst their principle supporters.
The republican party (particularily the neo-cons and bi-coastal party leaders) do not agree with the tea party – but feel the movement could be useful if it energizes voters to vote against democrats – and they would like to co-opt the party and make it part of the republican party – without ceding actual control of the party to the tea partiers.
Should either or both parties succeed in their aim – the tea party movement will be just another short lived ineffectual phenonmena.
If the tea party is to succeed it will have to follow the lead of the NRA – and support candidates of either party that support the tea party agenda and avoid being captured by either party. Otherwise like minorities in the democratic party or anti-abortionists in the republican party they will be reliably taken for granted and will lose their political clout.
September 7, 2010, 11:39 amA. Criminal says:
As near as I can tell, the Tea Parties=racism idea derives from a lack of support for “affirmative action” – which is perverse since AA is just racism in action.
Check it out:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html, which links to:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
In the poll they don’t use the term “affirmative action”, but describe it, e.g.
“Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors. (Agree)”
So, according to the unbiased folks at University of Washington’s Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality, opposition to discrimination based on race is now cause for accusations of racism. It’s pure Newspeak.
September 7, 2010, 12:04 pmlivermoron says:
Martin Luther King was a Republican as well.
September 7, 2010, 12:14 pmmonkeyfan says:
Speaking of out of touch…In Leftopia the word “illegal” has has become “undocumented” even as the names atop their showcase legislation reek of Orwellian newspeak.
Meanwhile “paranoid” “tea-bagging” “racist” God and gun clinging “redneck” “hatriot” “xenophobe” “snowbilly” “breeders” of far “flyover” “Jesusland” who don’t even like whine (AKA American commoners) are out in the streets redressing their grievances amidst a hail of suppressive lies and propaganda flung by the oh so in touch ‘elite’ chattering class and other fellow consumers whose livelihoods depend almost exclusively upon gorging themselves on the redistributed fruit of the common man’s labor.
Good luck with that calling Americans neanderthal racists get out the vote drive.
September 7, 2010, 12:18 pmdave72 says:
Sidaway – If you haven’t lived in the U.S. you have no clue. My 3 years living in the U. K. and Europe opened my eyes to the virulent, open racism of your citizens that makes the U. S. look like a paragon of virtue. Don’t believe anything you see in the ultra-liberal U. S. media.
September 7, 2010, 12:27 pmVictor Erimita says:
Tony, if you have any actual interest in understanding the the sentiments of American conservatives, moderates and independents currently referred to in shorthand as the “Tea Party movement,” you are not going to get it from reading the Guardian or cherry-picked poll questions. The politcal sentiment with all the juice in America right now is chiefly concerned with: (1) enormous, unsustainable, ruinous government spending and debt, (2) the over-growth of government in general, reaching as it has into nearly every aspect of life (something you Euros love but we Americans not so much,) (3) an elite class of government bureaucrats, politicians, media opinion shapers, academics and assorted pundits, who, it is perceived, regard their fellow citizens with contempt, condescension and fear. The illegal immigration epidemic is simply another example of how government is not even recognizing the concerns of most citizens. Gay marriage and the social issues are blwon up by the media but not of paramount concern to most Americans.
If you think the so-called “Tea Party” movement is driven by racism, xenophobia, bigotry and redneck ignorance, you are either misled by whatever you are reading (not difficult to do) or are predisposed yourself to believe such things. The Left is so irrevocably convinced of its own intellectual and moral superiority that it can only imagine opposition to any of its tenets must come from ignorance and bigotry. SO it calls names, it condescends, it slanders. The effect of this is to only deepen the resentments of those who hear themselves so slandered. If I am an educated professional who thinks my government is borrowing my nation into oblivion, and I hear my president, the leaders of his party, and their megaphones in the media, telling me my concerns are grounded in racism, it serves to feed my conviction that they are disconnected from reality and hardened in their desire to retain power.
The “elites” don’t understand this, which means they cannot address it. Anyone else who doesn’t understand this simply will not be able to understand the political shifts happening in America now.
September 7, 2010, 2:17 pmGuy says:
What does whether Susan B. Anthony or MLK was a Republican have to do with anything?
1) The point was about whether something was supported by the majority of the people, not the Republican party.
2) The civil rights movement caused the poor southern racist whites, who had previously controlled the Democratic party, to leave in a mass exodus and become an important part of the base of the Republican party.
September 7, 2010, 3:08 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Billboard Linking Obama, Hitler Draws Complaints
Created by an Iowa Tea Party Group, The Billboard Has Drawn Criticism From Tea Partiers at a National Level.Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday encouraged her supporters to read an article comparing the BP escrow fund to Nazism.
It appears Obama has taken a page from Hitler’s authoritarian playbook, according to Michele Chang. “A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution,” Chang writes. [This example is more interesting; it's a writer for Alex Jones's site (we'll return to Jones in a moment) falling for a satire piece.]Alex Jones video on Obama as Hitler.Recently, healthcare and oil industry lobbyist Newt Gingrich published a book, To Save America, which argues repeatedly that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are a “secular-socialist machine” that “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.”Glenn Beck: “This is what Hitler did with the SS.” Discussing Obama’s call for a “civilian national security force” — which was a reference to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps — Beck said on the August 27 edition of his Fox News program: “I’m finding this — this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is — I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, ‘I’m not comparing’ — but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein — so — but you are comparing that. And I — I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.”
Looks like the Obama=Hitler idea is pretty well mainstreamed into conservative discourse. By comparison, MoveOn.org had a user submission on its site for a few minutes comparing Bush to Hitler. Some false equivalence we got going there.
September 7, 2010, 4:16 pmTed says:
Does that make you an “elitist” then?
Oh, and I didn’t see a definition of “paranoid” offered, though several people have implicitly asked for one. Here are two that are interesting:
1 : a rare chronic nondeteriorative psychosis characterized chiefly by systematized delusions of persecution or of grandeur that are commonly isolated from the mainstream of consciousness and that are usually not associated with hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of individuals or of groups toward suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others that is based not on objective reality but on a need to defend the ego against unconscious impulses, that uses projection as a mechanism of defense, and that often takes the form of a compensatory megalomania
Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (unabridged ed 2002).
“Paranoid Personality Disorder”: “The essential features of Paranoid Personality Disorder is a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. This pattern begins by early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.
* * *
Individuals with Paranoid Personality Disorder are generally difficult to get along with and often have problems with close relationships. Their excessive suspiciousness and hostility may be expressed in overt argumentativeness, in recurrent complaining, or by quiet, apparently hostile aloofness.
* * * *
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed, text revision).
I suppose the Tea Party could fit within Webster’s definition #2, but what political party doesn’t? The more interesting discovery is how well the DSM-IV-TR describes the comments. So very meta…
September 7, 2010, 4:26 pmThe Awful Truth says:
The operational defintion of ‘paranoia’ used here seems to be anything that Tony Sidaway disagrees with.
September 7, 2010, 4:39 pmmack says:
Having used the DSM IV as part of a career of 20 years – (DSM III before) – and having worked with diagnosed paranoids and paranoid schizophrenics – I do not find it at all applicable to the comments here or to the definition of paranoid as used in the topic.
What is interesting on a side note – is the growing nexus between the tea party and Sarah Palin – and the changing political landscape caused by the failing economy.
Palin is tied in some recent polls with Romney and Obama. She could walk away with the Republican nomination in 2012 if she wants to. She has tea party support, she has a highly motivated base and given Obama’s failing poll numbers – she has taken away her primary opponents biggest knock against her – that she can’t win in Nov. Romney inspires voters and his base like a wet noodle – the favorite going in to 2008 folded then and he will fold again – none of the current crop – Huckabee, Gingrich, Romney – could beat McCain – the Bob Dole of 2008. None can motivate the base to vote like Palin can. Palin is also piling up political IOU’s with her sucessful primary endorsements should they win in Nov 2010.
That leaves Obama who I thought was unbeatable in 2008 – but his uninspired leadership – the continuing failing economy – has lead his poll numbers to tank – (though he would still beat Romney or others of his ilk at this point since Obama could still motivate some of his base and Romney or the others could not motivate their base). He would lose at this point to Palin in 2012 unless he can turn around the economy or unless the economy turns around despite his efforts – which it won’t – because even if it “recovers” according to wall street and economists and for the top 5 to 10 percent of earners – for 90 percent of americans they will still be worse off and less economically secure than they were before it began – as the trend towards a shrinking middle class continues.
Palin will be the outsider – loved by the tea party and hated by all the establishment – both left, right, and libertarian. It will be worth the price of addmission if she chooses to run – the venom unleashed against her and the ridicule of the left and the elite will energize her base even more.
This is really going to be fun.
September 7, 2010, 5:03 pmohwilleke says:
There is lots of clear paranoia (see, e.g., the Birthers and those who think Obama is a Mulsim). The Republican nominee for Governor in Colorado (Dan Maes) made headlines by accusing the Mayor of Denver of being a stooge in a United Nations plot to take over America by supporting a city run bike rental program. One of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate in Colorado (the establishment supporter loser, Jane Norton) made the failure of President Obama to clear war on the Islamic religion one of her important campaign points.
There is far less criticism of “Barack Obama’s domestic program” that is in anyway rational or connected to the facts.
Republican/Tea Party critics of health care reform, for example, declaim about death panels that don’t exist, and socialized medicine in a program that shifts people from government programs to private health insurance and private health care providers and lacks a public option (with fears often expressed by people who have and love Medicare and VA care).
There is a widespread belief (that has been a boon to gun dealers) that the Obama administration has set out to criminalize gun ownership, when in fact there is been no legislation on that front and Obama endorsed the stance later taken by the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize an individual right to bear arms for self-defense that applies to the states.
Critics of the Obama administration’s immigration policy seem oblivious to the fact that no administration has deported more people and that the only legislation passed this session has been to fund more border controls.
Opposition to President Obama’s domestic program that is rooted in “make shit up” political debate that sounds plausible only to the paranoid mind is not an inconsistent option.
This isn’t to say that all critics of Obama’s domestic programs are paranoid. There are legitimate, informed, rational criticisms to be made, from both the right and the left, by people with lots of information (cash for clunkers and home purchasers tax credits were economically unsound stimulus), and by those who don’t have much (e.g. if unemployment is 9.6% and every other storefront on the block has a “for lease” sign, something must be wrong). But, those aren’t the critics whose opinions appear to matter in this election.
September 7, 2010, 5:13 pmMike G says:
“If the tea party is to succeed it will have to follow the lead of the NRA — and support candidates of either party that support the tea party agenda and avoid being captured by either party. Otherwise like minorities in the democratic party or anti-abortionists in the republican party they will be reliably taken for granted and will lose their political clout.”
Yeah, but first they need an election in which they beat the crap out of the Dems. Until that happens, the Dems won’t feel the need to kowtow to them, and the Republicans will only pretend to.
September 7, 2010, 5:13 pmmack says:
Mike G says: “Yeah, but first they need an election in which they beat the crap out of the Dems. Until that happens, the Dems won’t feel the need to kowtow to them, and the Republicans will only pretend to.”
True – as luck would have it I hear there is just such an election scheduled in Nov this year.
September 7, 2010, 5:39 pmTed says:
Joke much? Out of curiosity, what do you think the operative definition “used in the topic” is? IYO, are the comments employing that definition consistently? There appears to be at least some confusion as to what is meant by paranoia applied in the context of the topic. Are these outliers?
My overall point was that the application of a concept like “paranoia” to a political party doesn’t lend itself well to reasonable debate. But maybe I’m just paranoid.
September 7, 2010, 5:52 pmmack says:
Yes we both are. As far as Volokh Conspiracy and sense of humor…um not something I see much of around here – sarcasm a lot – so my bad then – besides I needed to make my contribution to thread drift and launched it off your comment.
No paranoia doesn’t apply much to political parties – calculating – disinformation – news cycle – disingenous – talking points – misdirection – money grubbing – power hungry – elitist – and cynical all do fit though as well as putting politics and party before country. One thing I admired about Bill Clinton – he never let the party come before his own personal ambition – hence he would sometimes do the right thing against his own party if he thought doing the right thing would benefit him.
Okay – I have to disagree with the use of paranoia – sorry Mr.Kopel – it is not paranoia – it is more denial – a common human foible and in the extreme manifest by political true believers of both established parties (not by the true leadership or insiders) and individuals who believe that the system can be fixed and utopia found.
September 7, 2010, 6:13 pmManju says:
Andrew J. Lazarus:
Yes, you’ve demonstrated that.
Well, that’s one datapoint. Thanks. But also, Dem Rep Keith Ellison referenced the Reichstag while discussing 911. Dem Sen Robert Byrd referenced Hitler when Bush tried to get rid of the Filibuster (or whatever the nuclear option does).
Fmr Gore advisor Naomi Wolf wrote a whole book about Bush as Fascist. The Guradian published conspiracy theories about prescott bush (to smear W by assocaition). Just google tedd rall, david neiwert, keith olberman. I could go on…
In light of these examples, perhaps you’d like to walk back this statement.
September 7, 2010, 11:41 pmred says:
Yes… The Death Panel was just one of those crazy Paranoooiiiidddd ideas, that our political elites had to write out of the health care bill, after the crazy paaarrraanoooiiiddd Sara Palin pointed it out:::::
Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be “misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.”
For Democrats, the decision was an apparent acknowledgment that the provision had become a lightning rod for critics of a proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to extend health insurance to more people, rein in health costs and make other changes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/14/nation/na-health-end-of-life14
Its all about paranoia,,,, unless, you know, you read the bill like an EDUCATED, DISCERNING Tea Partier would.
September 7, 2010, 11:44 pmred says:
BTW… I can’t wait for November.
September 7, 2010, 11:46 pmnoahp says:
The progressive elites of early 20th century were racist scoundrels by todays standards. Tell me George Bernard Shaw was a Tory? Fabian socialist is more like it and they were scary!
September 7, 2010, 11:48 pmRonF says:
Tony, the polls you cite and the commentary offered regarding immigration are essentially useless. That’s because the MSM consistently talks about people who are “immigrants” and politicians who are “anti-immigrant” without making any distinction among illegal aliens, resident aliens and naturalized citizens. So people say something to the media and the pollers and neither one reports what the people said are saying.
For example: I am pro-immigrant rights and for immigration. Sounds like leftist positions? Sure. That proves that I am out of step with the Tea Party movement?
Let’s see: am I pro-immigrant rights? You bet I am. I think naturalized citizens should have the exact same rights as natural-born citizens (with those few exceptions such as not being able to be elected President). I think that resident aliens should have all the rights and privileges due to them under American law. And I think that illegal aliens should have their immediate shelter, healthcare, etc. needs met and should get proper due process (which might include a grant of temporary or even permanent asylum, etc.) before they are deported.
Do I think that immigration is a good thing for America? Absolutely. In my department at work we have two immigrants. They came over with legal visas, gained resident alien status, and became naturalized citizens. We all congratulated them and gave them 3′ x 5′ American flags. One of them has it wrapped around the outside of her cubicle. But people who come here illegally need to be arrested and deported (again, with due process and all that implies).
September 8, 2010, 12:06 amRonF says:
Death panels? When the government controls healthcare it has to decide how the funds it has to spend will be allocated among the people getting healthcare. There’s more demand for healthcare than there is money to pay for it, so necessarily the government will have to decide who gets what. At some point the government will have to decide that certain expenditures aren’t justified by the public benefit. That’s going to extend to treatments that can prolong life. They’ll make at least some decisions regarding who’s going to die earlier than they might otherwise.
This is not paranoia. It’s inevitable. It’s an unavoidable consequence of a) government control of healthcare and b) a demand for healthcare that exceeds the supply.
September 8, 2010, 12:12 amrosignol says:
ITYM “Beat the crap out of the Dems, *and* involuntarily retire a bunch of Republican establishment types”.
Nothing focuses the concentration of a politician like the risk of losing his phoney-baloney job.
September 8, 2010, 3:14 amseedtick in ohio says:
Tony Sidaways strikes me as taking the current Journolist line. Ignorant redneck did not work. Racist did not work. Now…”paranoid” “worriers”. However, much to their chagrin what they are seeing is aversion, not paranoia. So instead of dealing with reality, they spin to “paranoia”, a term which suggests ignorant, reactionary activity rather than the natural reaction of a purposeful people who reject top down centralized control of their lives at their core. So…I say lets just keep on with our fight: engaging the “Tony Sidaways” among us in ways that move the rest of us forward and not sidaways where the tonys would like to take us!!
September 8, 2010, 7:14 amElliot says:
Can you tell us specifically what constitutes that overt racism you reference?
September 8, 2010, 1:01 pmElliot says:
Anyone notice nobody knows how to deal with the Tea Party? Nothing seems to work.
So we don’t have to wait until November, if the Republicans take both the House and Senate can someone tell us the reason?
September 8, 2010, 1:28 pmLee Reynolds says:
I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not.
Blacks and other ethnic groups have been told for decades that everyone is out to get them. I’m a fully “made” member of the Tempe Tea Party here in Arizona. Let me be the first one to say that racial oppression is the furthest thing from our minds. We are here to guarantee the liberty of ALL Americans. Preserving and protecting the integrity of our constitution benefits everyone. The left accuses us of being ignorant bigots not because it is in any way remotely true, but because they are intellectually bankrupt and because the accusation itself is so shocking that it works to distract everyone from what we’re really about. They want to silence us and they are turning to bogus accusations to do that.
If you want to set your friend straight about the nature and intentions of the Tea Party movement, just tell him that we are fighting for his rights and freedoms too.
September 8, 2010, 2:14 pmLee Reynolds says:
I’ve no doubt that he’s been hearing all sorts of rumours and innuendo from the beeb. When the only source of information that someone has is the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation and its parrots, it isn’t surprising that they would subscribe to some really silly ideas. Information control is the only effective means of mind control. Control what someone knows, and you control what they think.
September 8, 2010, 2:22 pmLee Reynolds says:
Reminds me of the word games that young earth creationists play, especially when it comes to the meaning of the word “theory.”
When someone has to lie then the truth is most definitely not on their side.
September 8, 2010, 2:28 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I suppose, but on this definition, insurance companies have death panels by the hundreds in operation right now. Nothing in Obamacare prohibited you from trying to find enough money for more treatment, as is the case with private insurance now. The picture of a death panel is about mean, cruel bureaucrats (unlike, say, those friendly neighbors in India reviewing my medical records today, snicker) telling perfectly healthy seniors that it’s time for them to die.
September 8, 2010, 6:18 pmJennell Gleaves says:
Hi… I don’t know if you’ve been making changes, but your pages aren’t displaying correctly for me. The borders of the text are overlapping. I didn’t do this the other day. I don’t know if it’s something on my computer or if you’ve made a change… Just thought you might want to look at it. Thanks! Jennell Gleaves
September 8, 2010, 7:14 pmbadlaw says:
Douthat’s thesis is well-taken. I do think he’s a polite-company conservative, and will only ever be the left’s “conservative” friend like David Brooks.
I think there’s also something to be said about our reliance on polls. It’s never been lost on me that there seem to be more polls on controversial “conservative” ideas, but few on “liberal” ideas that “we all know” are crazy. How many polls (or publications reporting on the same study) have been conducted on how much of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim? How many on whether Obama is an actual citizen and eligible to be President? How many on Sarah Palin’s approval rating…as if she has confirmed she’s running for President?
The media wasn’t as keen on belaboring the question of how many Democrats believe Bush masterminded 9/11. When they poll Obama’s approval ratings or the likelihood that the Democrats will lose big in November, it’s always with a corollary (“oh, well, this always happens in mid-term elections…there’s never been a popular Congress”) in an attempt to divert from the fact that after two sweeping Congressional victories for the Democrats, their potential loss in November is just…ordinary.
They even tried this with the health care debate. Beliefs about what the health care bill would do among voters was all paranoia and misguided because of FOX News and John Boehner. It couldn’t have possibly been because they were trying to pass a trillion-dollar, 1200-page bill no one in Congress read, in which Pelosi said they’d have to pass it in order to know what’s in it (or what it does).
September 8, 2010, 10:10 pmbadlaw says:
But this is a thin justification for labeling a real phenomena as “paranoia”. The issue is health care reform…how reformative is the bill if it simply federalizes pathologies in the private sector? How “universal” is it?
September 9, 2010, 4:23 amleo marvin says:
No, that’s a different issue. The issue is whether calling something a “death panel” when government does it, but not when insurance companies do it, says more about the paranoia-stoking demagogues doing the calling than it does about the health care legislation that adds some more public administrators to those already working, public and private.
September 9, 2010, 7:10 pm