We all had a good chuckle a while back when an obscure columnist claimed that McCain-Palin's invocation of "socialist" to describe Obama's economic policies was a code word for black. Well, here are the less obscure John Judis of The New Republic and Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress saying more or less the same thing, in a more sophisticated way.
Look, it's reasonable to say that attacks on "welfare queens" or Willie Horton or inner city crime or whatnot can stir latent prejuice in voters, whether or not that was the intent of the attacker. But (and I say this as someone who has spent a good part of his academic career writing about the economics and the history of race in the U.S., and also someone who thinks it's silly to claim that Obama's policies are "socialist") "spreading the wealth" and "socialism" are so far removed from any racial subtext that I can't help but see pieces like this as attempts to silence any criticism of Obama by playing the race card, period. I should note that with very few exceptions it's been Obama's supporters, and not the Obama campaign, that's tended to try to find a racial subtext to any criticism of Obama, no matter how mundane.
Crying "Racist" when someone says "Socialist" says to me that the people pushing this should look in the mirror if they want to see a racist.
As for the Obama camp not pushing this, I don't believe that's a fair description. He's been saying for months that "Republicans are going to use racism". Little surprise that his followers go looking for it.
Susan Estridge ( sic ? Estrich ? ) has a column out today saying flat out 'The ONLY way Obama can lose is because of racism !' In her supposed mind, the ONLY concievable reason ( although an invalid one ) to vote against Brobama is his race. Not his policies, not his lies, not his black radical philosophy and theology - just his color. Therefore, anyone who votes against him is, de facto, racist.
Of course, she ignores the fact that the ONLY reason he's even in the finals of this contest is BECAUSE he's black. If he were WHITE, with his ( lack of ) credentials, he wouldn't even have been viable in the primary, and Shrillary would be the Dem candidate today. Race is the ONLY thing that put him where he is today.
Where did you see these? I haven't really paid attention to the election and I'm curious.
It is becoming apparent saying anything negative about our next president is racist.
And, it would take someone a full month to catalog all the race cards that have been thrown, and that's assuming a T1 wired into their optic nerve.
BHO himself has played the race card: he's not like all the presidents on the dollar bills [sic]. Just a couple days ago - prompted by Jon Stewart - he played the race card again as part of a joke. And, although no one else noticed it, he's done things like said the word "we" in South L.A. when he clearly only meant blacks and Hispanics; HaroldMeyerson, showing how much of a dim bulb he is, thought BHO was including him in the "we".
If BHO is elected, his surrogates will play the race card so much, the only good thing that might come out of it is that people will start mocking those who play it and lessen its impact. On the way to that point (if we ever get there) expect many victims of BHO's PC thugs to lose careers and the like.
If anyone doesn't want four years (or until he's impeached) of race card playing, see my non-partisan case against Obama. If you think it would sway their minds, send it to every undecided you know. And, in the right sidebar there are three other featured posts. Send BHO's plan for pre-teens to every parent you can find. Send the MSM post to MSM reporters. And, try and push the first one about going to a BHO appearance, asking him a tough question, and then uploading his response to Youtube.
There's still time to prevent the disaster, but few people are willing to work at it.
It only makes political sense as an attack because it resonates with underlying racial issues. It is actually quite similar to Welfare Queens in that respect. I don't think that means people making these attacks are racists. I think it means that the McCain campaign selected this strategy in part because it is more effective against a black man.
David, are you doubting that some white voters see this as a racial issue? I can't point to any studies, but there's all kinds of anecdotal evidence of that.
As I have stated here many times, I would vote for Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, and many other African-American conservatives over any white liberal clown.
But so-called "progressive" liberal/leftists believe, in their own deranged world view, that Constitutional originalists are automatically racists, despite all evidence to the contrary. Conservatives are followers of Abraham Lincoln's philosophy, while today's liberals are the direct descendants of the Jim Crow-era contingent.
The truth is that the Left is far, far more racist, and anti-female, than any other political group in America.
Let's KEEP IT REAL, shall we ?
What percentage of BLACK voters see it as 'a racial issue, a racial election' ? Try maybe 98 % ? If that low ? So why is it OK for THEM to 'vote race', but not WHITES ???
She was saying, CONSIDERING OBAMA'S LEAD IN THE POLLS, an Obama loss would be due to racism. The argument goes like this: Never in history would polls have ever been so off before (in the case of a McCain win), so what else could explain why so many people lied to so many pollsters?
Pretty much any arguement could have that effect.
The charge of racism is a move to shut off debate and silence criticism.
Nice to insult the host. If you don't like it here--well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
We are required by EV to dial it down. If we were any better, our radiance would blind you.
"err, electric waffle?"
WHERE?!!!
Another excellent objective post. Two in one day!
I guess Occam's razor doesn't apply where certain elements of the left apply the predictable psychoanalysis-as-political-argument formula?
"It is intellectual bullying."
More conservative anti-intellectualism. Will the nightmare never end?
Race is the ONLY thing that put him where he is today."
Wasn't there a primary process or something along the way?
Since half of workers don't pay taxes
</blockquote>
How do these workers get around paying payroll taxes? Sales taxes? State and local income taxes?
"Socialist" is not a code word for black. However, one way to attack redistributive policies is to emphasize that the beneficiaries are "those people" and not "you." This is not the only way, of course. But for many people, a redistributive program that provides a safety net for "your people" is a lot more appealing than one that takes your tax money and gives it to "those people." This is not rocket science, and once again, "socialist" is not a code word for black.
"I do think he has that minority thing probably in the back of his mind, deep down," said Charles Palmer of Lafayette, La., a retired oil company manager and registered Democrat who plans to vote for McCain. "He's not going to hurt 'em, let's put it that way."
"Even among white voters who believe that Obama would govern equally, like Dominic Moccio of North Brunswick, N.J., there are concerns rooted in America's rapidly changing racial demographics. 'People who are in power set the agenda,' said Moccio, who works in information technology at a cosmetics plant."
Detroit News - 10/29/08
Indeed! "Libs" are incapable of mounting a rational argument. Everyone knows that! After all, it must be true that leftist libs are irrational because, if it isn't, then Smokey's belief system would be challenged, and of course we all know that Smokey is right about everything! Thus, Liberals are incapable of uttering a coherent, rational thought. Look, I am going to do all of you leftist/liberal/lefty/libs a favor -- I am going to recite Smokey's argument as a way to demonstrate how Smokey is a genius (and thus how leftist/liberal/lefty/libs are stupid)...
Now that's how you do it! Leftist/liberal/lefty/libs need to analyze this perfect Smokey argument -- if you want to prove a point, you do the following: (1) cite yourself as authority; (2) elaborate on your personal subjective preferences; (3) and insult all leftist/liberal/lefty/libs.
As impressive as Smokey's above argument is -- leftist/liberal/lefty/libs, I hope you are reading this! -- it gets better!! Read on...
Now this is powerful! Leftist/liberal/lefty/libs, you are so stupid because you can not argue like this! Here is how you make an argument: First, you insult your opponent. Then, you insult your opponent again. Then, you state an outlandish claim -- like liberals believe that "Constitutional originalists are automatically racists."
Wow! This will go down in the annals of argumentation!!! Leftist/liberal/lefty/libs are most definitely "descendants of the Jim Crow-era contingent!" Let's just call a spade a spade: every single leftist/liberal/lefty/lib is a racist. Every one. Every. Single. One.
If you want to convince someone, you must always preface it with "The truth is," or something similar to it. That is the key. If you add the words "The truth is" to the beginning of a sentence, it automatically means that your argument is 100% true.
Smokey, thank you for exposing those wretched leftist/liberal/lefty/libs for their inability to make rational arguments. Smokey, thank you also for showing us all how to make a rational argument. You really showed those leftist/liberal/lefty/libs!!!!!!!
Im a little confused. How can wealth be distributed more fairly, if it isnt distributed?
Smokey has some vs. all and liberal vs. left issues. Not one to get caught up on fine distinctions, Smokey.
"Im a little confused. How can wealth be distributed more fairly, if it isnt distributed?"
It's that little harmless-looking "re-" on the front.
There are areas where liberals do lack, shall we say, "clinical detachment." The reining central dogma of modern day liberalism is multiculturalism. In my experience they cannot calmly deal with this subject and invariably resort to name calling and personal insults. Examples-- Larry Summers, James Watson, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen etc. All victims of a challenge to the central dogma.
Even if the subtext of some of this is racial, or intended to be racial, it's a waste of time. People who would be moved by a racial argument, however subtle, have probably already decided to vote against Obama.
The original McCain tag-line struck me as, well, maybe not exactly racist but as implying _something_ about Obama -
"An American President America can be proud of."
(It also strikes me as one of the clunkiest slogans I have ever heard.)
--
A. Zarkov,
I am a liberal, and I do have a belief in what you call "multiculturalism." You appear to disagree with my belief. But that is OK! We can argue about it, and that is a healthy thing to do. The point of my previous post is that Smokey consistently makes divisive, close-minded, derogatory posts that fail to recognize the nuance or respond to the merits of the positions held by 99% of the people on this blog. Saying that liberals are "bereft of rational argument" is an example of this unfortunate shortcoming.
Some people do engage in hyperbole, but I don't think one should attack them personally. Let what they say stand, and provide a rational argument to the contrary. Name calling simply escalates the rhetoric and leads nowhere. For example at least one person here called me a "fascist," evidently without understanding the meaning of term. It wasn't Smokey either. I actually found it amusing.
As to the term "multiculturalism," I did not coin it, others did.
Obama is called a socialist for wanting to "redistribute" wealth - even if it's a small percentage of top earners' incomes. But give the largest banks in the country hundreds of billions of dollars - and not one word or criticism is offered by the conservatives who frequent this blog. We have seen the greatest socialization of our economy in 70 or so years - and not one word.
The only possible conclusion one can draw is that criticizing Obama is much more important than really worrying about socialism. And that the socialism critique is just a cover.
There was a great deal of criticism of said "bailout".
It was a stupid, vile, socialist contrivance.
24aheaddotcom, I'd be glad to know why you think Obama wasn't talking about taxation. Joe's question was specifically about taxation, and in their approximately five-minute long conversation Obama talked about his tax proposals, some of which would have allegedly cost Joe some money and some of which would have allegedly saved him some. Whether one agrees with Obama's proposals or not, the comment and discussion was clearly in the context of taxation. Transcripts are all over the intertubez. Redistribution of wealth through taxation was actually a pet project of McCain's hero TR, and as you know McCain used to agree before he was running for president.
I say "allegedly" above because FWIW, Joe has since been quoted as saying that he had misunderstood Obama's plan, that the business he plans to buy will make nowhere near $250,000, and that he doesn't think he'll pay any additional tax under Obama. The date I saw on this was October 16. I don't think this has been nearly as widely reported.... probably just more MSM bias :)
Most of the names seem to only show up for one thread, or sometimes only one or two comments, and then go away again. Curiously, they seem to repeat a certain camp's talking points.
I wonder why that could be.
Maybe checking the IP addresses and/or referring links would reveal something.
Is that true?
If so, if you lose part of the check as you do better, that amounts to a disincentive to do better and could be considered an increasing tax.
It's possible that certain people who won't vote for Obama due to policy issues won't say so to a pollster.
IOW, afraid of being considered racist.
But the vote won't be a matter of racism.
I am aware of the sneer that nobody cares what a, say, robot poll call thinks. But the fact is, they got your phone number from someplace and they know something about you--maybe they do, maybe they don't--and presuming your reponse will be forever anonymous is a stupid presumption. See JtP's life. See the Delaware gun registry. People who get poll calls are right to be suspicious. Even if wrong.
Now, I'm pretty sure that somebody is trying to figure out how to make the case that JtP's life on the national screen, or the Delaware gun registry, are WAAAAY different from whatever pollsters know and retain about you. Forget it. Point is, it doesn't do to trust somebody who claims your response will be anonymous. They may be telling the truth, but, absent knowing more for certain, it would be silly to bet a dime on the question. Because that's not how it looks from the outside.
Not if it's a tax cut, which typically means a tax rate cut. If you don't pay tax at x%, then you won't pay any at (x - y)%. But no matter how low the rate goes, you won't get a handout unless you get a tax credit. Has Obama promised credits for individuals who bottom out on the payment obligation? If so, I haven't heard it.
I should say I check Volokh quite frequently and always enjoy the legal commentary. But talk about this campaign, particularly for me, as an Obama supporter, has been very disappointing...
Im a little confused. How can wealth be distributed more fairly, if it isnt distributed?
</blockquote>
Hallowe'en makes a nice opportunity for this little parable.
All the first grade kids get together to compare their haul of candy. Happens that by trick-or-treating tirelessly from after school until as late into the night as he could, one of the 20 kids had accumulated two full grocery bags of candy.
It would be nice if the candy were distributed more fairly.
It might be good if the kid with all the candy were to give some to others.
Obama wants the other 19 kids to gang up on the 20th kid, take a lot of his candy, and split it among themselves.
That's because there isn't any daylight between what Barack Obama claims is "spreading the wealth" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Obama won't gas people with hoses from truck engines, but then Marx didn't either. Doesn't mean they aren't both socialist.
And yes, McCain is Obama-lite in that regard. The lesser of two evils is still the lesser, and one of the two will be President.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Except he's talking about tax credits. If those exceed your liability, then you get a check cut for you.
Have you listened to your candidate? Or are you just misrepresenting him?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfp
In fact, according to some here, wanting evenhanded coverage of Obama is identical to demanding unrelenting negative coverage of him.
Double standards are disappointing, and more so in some places than in others.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Newman, Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2005).
I will continue to believe that many of Obama's redistributionist policies are socialist, even if they aren't at the far end of "total government ownership and control of the means of production" socialism. You are certainly free to think that this opinion is "silly", but frankly, my dear professor, I don't give a damn, because I will think that your opinion is uninformed and therefore unworthy of credence.
gab, I think you weren't paying attention - I, and a great many others on this blog, were very harshly critical of the Treasury Plan to give billions to the banks, and even to the "loan" to bail out AIG, when those issues were discussed in previous posts.
Then you should take the cotton out of your ears.
Obama is proposing "refundable" tax credits, not rate cuts. Refundable credits are given even to those whose tax liability "...bottom(s) out on the payment obligation?" Therefore, the bottom 40% who pay zero income tax will get money back.
It is just so amazing to me, that on a site like this, supposedly populated by the best and the brightest, that at this stage of the campaign, statements that display such ignorance of their own candidate's stated positions are still showing up.
Sheesh, even Rush Limbaugh was against the bailouts.
Here is a hint, Bush is neither a capitalist nor a conservative. He is a Republican, which is a different type of beast entire.
taxprof blog
You are correct. The credits phase out at a relatively low amount, certainly far below being "rich" as defined by Obama at whatever the claim is today, which effectively results in a huge increase in the "effective marginal rates".
Being ignored in all this hoopla and hype about "tax cuts" is the philosophical issue: is it good that nearly half the people in this country now pay no federal (and also state) income taxes? When this group votes, what is their natural tendency? To support the candidate who will increase taxes on the rest of us, that's what. And what is the candidate's motivation: in order to get elected, promise to make this group even larger and give them even more "refundable" tax credits.
The golden goose is damned near asphyxiated already.
And McCain's health plan gives people a $5000 refundable tax credit, even if they have no tax liability. But somehow all the people yelping about the evils of socialism have nothing to say about that.
It is just so amazing to me.....that at this stage of the campaign, statements that display such ignorance of their own candidate's stated positions are still showing up.
Indeed.
It is a category error to posit that capitalists automatically support capitalism. Many are for mercantilism.
The Title: "Reagan's Tax Revolution: A Big Boost for Families and the Poor"
The first paragraph of the Intro:
There has been lots of criticism of McCain's plans from conservatives and even more from libertarians.
You probably have not heard them, because this election is not about McCain; It is about whether you support the Obamessiah or are a racist.
What you wrote above does nothing to disparage this point of view:
McCain's credit has far less in the way of central planning strings attached such as "national service".
McCain-Feingold is an abomination of the first water, beginning to take the 1st amendment down the same path of abject decrepitude and inversion of it's true meaning that the 2nd is just barely beginning to recover from. All other things being equal, I'd be quite happy to have the VC still holding McCain--his views on the 1st amendment are that bad.
But all things aren't equal, the other guy's Obama.
He said:
&
And his allies in the Congress want to cut the military budget by 25%.
And he wants to "spread the wealth" with substantial "progressive" strings attached.
And with respect to McCain-Feingold, he's already been worse in practice than that law has been in it's application, he's tried and to a degree succeeded in silencing political criticism by threat of legal action.
I fully expect to spend the next four years fighting to preserve and expand liberty against the machinations of whatever administration is present, but with McCain it will be less desperate and over smaller issues.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
You probably have not heard them, because this election is not about McCain; It is about whether you support the Obamessiah or are a racist.
You're right. I have not heard them. certainly not on the VC, where many commenters seem perfectly willing to criticize Obama's tax plans as socilaist, Marxist, etc.
I don't know if I buy the whole "racial code word" argument, but I do think "socialist" is part of the whole "real America/fake America" smear, which is pretty disgusting and divisive in itself.
Politicians don't like to talk about it though. If you want to really stir up something, just ask one "Hey! What are you going to do about the juice?"
I had not heard that. It does materially improve my opinion of that portion of his platform.
That's because you are patriotic towards an America which does not exist, can not exist, and the creation of which should not be attempted. You are leftist.
I should not hesitate to be divisive when divisions exist, false friendship is not helpful. Or friendship.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Let's see. Obama is proposing that we end the Bush tax cuts for the rich and go back to Clinton-era tax rates (or lower).
Was Bill Clinton a socialist? Was America a socialist country in the 1990s?
And did George Bush end socialism in America when he knocked a few points off the marginal tax rates?
Get a grip you over-reacting nutjob.
They weren't tax cuts for the rich, they were taxcuts for taxpayers. People who paid more got more back. This is distinguished from what Obama proposes, where there is no relationship to the effect that the tax cut is a return of a fraction of what was paid.
Less so than LBJ or Nixon, but yes.
Yes, and has been so since the 30's and FDR, where before it was less so but equally sadly mercantilist.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"Not if it's a tax cut, which typically means a tax rate cut. If you don't pay tax at x%, then you won't pay any at (x - y)%. But no matter how low the rate goes, you won't get a handout unless you get a tax credit. Has Obama promised credits for individuals who bottom out on the payment obligation? If so, I haven't heard it."
Google "Negative Income Tax" and Milton Friedman. Are you to the "right" of Uncle Miltie on this one?
If that makes me to the right of Milton Friedman in that one regard, so be it.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
But even those who do not now have employer-provided health insurance will get McCain's credit. So those who do have employer insurance will face higher taxes and many who don't will get money handed to them. So it's not just moving things around. It's actually giving money to some people.
The very great difference here is that the oil companies are profiting from the permanently extractive, value lessening use of what will remain to be state property (or national property where the Alaskan state receives a payment in lieu of property taxes).
You can argue the state should only sell the property to the oil companies and have done, but I think not that the oil companies should have that benefit of them free of charge.
Or are you for corporate welfare?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Which raises the question of why the $5000 credit to employers exists at all, but does not disparage the removal of the unfairness that those who have no employer provided healthcare are relatively subsidising those who do.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
I think this typifies the attitude of way too many Republicans. They are unable to accept that patriotism can exist, does exist, outside of political differences. So they divide the country, question their opponents' patriotism, try to call themselves the "real Americans," etc.
It is utterly inexcusable and dishonorable. And yes, that goes for you, TDP, and all your initials too.
So you favor a windfall profits tax (which accounted for the increase in payments to Alaskans Palin was bragging about) on oil company's profits? How about a national windfall profits tax?
Socialism now means "an unequivocally stated commitment to the destruction of capitalism and its wholesale replacement by state agencies" - i.e., a program no one advocates any more. If this semantic bait-and-switch were only coming from commenters, I'd stay here, but it's coming from the site's creators, so I'm off to more honest climes.
I should say I check Volokh quite frequently and always enjoy the legal commentary. But talk about this campaign, particularly for me, as an Obama supporter, has been very disappointing...
When political differences are such, on the part of one party, as to destroy all that is distinctive about a nation and to the good, rendering it indistinguishable from other portions of the planet less free and more desperate--when what is sought is the remaking of the national character into one whereof in this case the American Revolution may as well have not been fought--then it is not pariotism.
Like it or lump it.
No. Not speaking the truth would be inexcusable and dishonorable.
A truth a more circumspect and wise person might take to heart is that persons living in portions of the world governed more in a manner to your liking seek to leave, if they are ambitious and capable, and enter here, where persons of your political persuasion are the less listened to--for now.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
We should not be surprised to find that Obama has kept and continues to keep company with anti-Americans."
The basic problem with this sort of argument is no one has been given the political, intellectual, moral, or theological monopoly on defining what is "American", or "pro-American" or "anti-American". The use of these terms is inherently and always rhetorical, arbitrary and subjective. What I like is "pro", what you like is "anti". It is a substitute for dealing with facts and evidence.
So the owners of a resource cannot raise it's price when it is profitable to do so? No doubt you favor the shortages which anti-gouging laws produce as well. I also note you do not address my point it would certainly be corporate welfare to not charge a reasonable rate for the resources.
I am unaware of having made the argument that McCain is not Obama-lite, in fact I have explicitly made just that argument. I note the lesser of to evils is still the lesser, and that one will be president.
What argument do you make that I should endorse the worse of the two?
And it's interesting you have introduced the word godless. Are you letting slip a glimpse at your own mental landscape?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
You seem very convinced about your ways. And, truthfully, a good economic liberal is not something with whom I will argue. Liberalism has some very powerful and convincing arguments.
However, you create a false choice here. You state that McCain is the lesser of two evils, "Obama-lite" in your terms, and as such you will vote for him... I beg to disagree. You have a third and even a fourth choice, and for those on the far left, so do they. Their names are Bob Barr and Ralph Nadir. My advice to you- since you are so certain about the evils of a progressive income tax- is that you vote for Bob Barr, someone who does not favor such a tax.
If you vote for McCain, you are not true to your thinking.
There's American conservatism at its finest. Disagree with TDP and you're an unpatriotic idiot.
No room for honest disagreement or discussion, just cries, accurate or not, of "leftist," "socialist,""Marxist," whatever. Give the TDP's of the world a handy catch-phrase and they are happy. It saves thinking.
Is there any real doubt that Obama is in favor of redistributing wealth from those who create wealth to those who don't?"
How do you define the creation of wealth, and who is engaged in this activity? Are the owners of wealth (say, e.g., the Walton heirs) necessarily the creators of it? Are people who do manual labor or pursue trades creators of wealth? Please address this question seriously without snark, as I would like to understand what you are asserting.
A followup question: Obama has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and employed/employs thousands. As far as I recall, and unlike McCain, he has not taken federal campaign funds (as there was never a discussion with the McCain about such an agreement). He has purchased hundreds of millions of dollars of goods and services. Has he "created" wealth? Has he created more wealth than McCain, in McCain's lifetime of exclusive (correct?) government service, government provided benefits and health care (yes, I am aware of the 5 years as a POW)? Is Obama much more of a capitalist in practice than McCain has been since he was 17?
That would be true if I thought prudence to be no virtue, however it is among the greatest of them in my estimation.
Additionally, between the Libertarians and Bob "Drug Warrior" Barr, I can't tell who is the more beclowning themselves...and like the p0ker aphorism goes, "If you can't tell who the sucker at the table is, you're the sucker."
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"o" replaced by "0" to evade what may be an overly broad spam filter in this case.
Well if calling it a catch-phrase saves you from needing to think about it, and you're okay with that, more power to you.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"How do you define the creation of wealth, and who is engaged in this activity?"
That's a good question, and one that can be answered. Just spending money does not create wealth. So it that sense Obama has not created wealth, he's only spent money. That's consumption, not investment. Creating wealth means adding value as when an automobile company makes car from basic components. Anyone who creates income producing capital has created wealth. If an engineer designs an airplane that carries paying passengers, he has created wealth. In general the government does not create wealth, with some exceptions. The federal government caused Hoover Dam to get built which created wealth. The value of the electricty produced etc.
"The use of these terms is inherently and always rhetorical, arbitrary and subjective."
I don't think so. In certain cases, there's no doubt as to who or what is anti-American. Julius Rosenberg was certainly anti-American. His spy ring transmitted many American secrets to the Soviet Union, such as the Norden Bomb Sight. His Soviet handler surfaced some years ago and freely admitted he was a valuable asset. Most members of the CPUSA were anti-American in a real sense, and not in a rhetorical, arbitrary and subjective sense. Anyone who wanted North Korea to prevail in the Korean War certainly deserves to be called anti-American. Of course the term can be used in an abusive manner, but that does prove the term is meaningless.
If prudence is one of your highest virtues, I hope you live in a swing-state. Because if you don't, you should vote your heart's desire. That's what elections are for.
I don't mind a debate between those who favor a flat tax versus those who favor a progressive one. I do think however that the name calling - "Socialist," "Liberal" (in the non-economic sense), "Communist" and "Terrorist" is a scare tactic that diminishes the quality of debate that I would imagine you (TP) would like to see. A 4% raise in the top marginal tax bracket is not the defining feature of Socialism.
I think where racism comes in is very clear. McCain's tactics have continuously been to paint Obama as some sort of "Other." African-Americans throughout the history of the U.S. have also been painted as that Other. Its easy in that respect to blur the lines.
"I think this typifies the attitude of way too many Republicans. They are unable to accept that patriotism can exist, does exist, outside of political differences. So they divide the country, question their opponents' patriotism, try to call themselves the "real Americans," etc."
No, he's just claiming that your patriotism is contingent, while his is unconditional. Like a father who only loves his child when the child behaves, versus one who accepts him with all his faults. I see this more in action than in words, but it is there. If you'd like it not to be, change and convince others to do so as well.
Some of it comes with the territory of being idealists, but not all.
"Can we call Sarah Palin a fascist because she claims that 'small-town America' is the 'real America?'"
Links for quotes please. Here's one I endorse:
"The change we must make isn't liberal or
conservative. It's both and it's different.
The small town and main streets of America
aren't like the corridors and back rooms of
Washington. People out here don't care about
the idle rhetoric of 'left' and 'right' and
'liberal' and 'conservative' and all the
other words that have made our politics a
substitute for action."
- Bill Clinton
Certainly it co-equal to several other.
I'm told I do, by the pollsters.
What I want to see is effective speech made by those who oppose the socialists, communists, terrorists, and modern liberals. All other things being equal, I would be happier with a higher tone to the speech, but I prefer effectiveness to a high tone. Prudence, you know.
It will be clear to those who need to find it, certainly.
He is of the Other, that foreign and anti-American ideology called Marxism. A home-grown flavor to it does not change the origin of the beliefs of his friends and mentors, Ayers and Wright.
The blurring is possibly present in the minds of persons viewing, depending on whether or not they are racist, and definitely in those claiming the lines are painted so they can be seen as blurred, as opposed to standing on their own merit.
And they do have their own merit, Obama is a socialist.
One day, in a perfect world, that McCain is Obama-lite in that regard will be a fact which will work to the undoing in this country of all such socialism.
For now, I'll be very happy to settle for Obama's not being elected.
In fact, I will be quite thankful to see the country dodge such a self-inflicted wound.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
I don't agree with that interpretation, but if you do, tell me what basis TDP has for both those.
In telling me to change, and not him, are you agreeing with him? If so, on what basis?
The argument looks silly to me: Because I support Obama, my patriotism is contingent on his election, or the adoption of policies he favors. Is that supposed to be the point?
Since most of the Walton heirs are still involved in the family business, and have a stake in it, while they inherited their wealth, they continue to generate more of it. Sam Walton's kids are not simply sitting back and rolling in piles of money. Even the poster child for "pointless wealthy celebrity" Paris Hilton does, God help us all, actually go out and earn her own money on top of her share of a family fortune. Those "owners of wealth" are still involved in creating wealth, if only to offset whatever they may spend.
I have no idea what you mean by "people who do manual labor or pursue trades creators of wealth".
I would argue that Obama and McCain have done absolutly nothing useful with the money they've received. At least nothing useful to anyone who is not a member of their inner circle and likely to get a job with the new administration. The goods and services purchased are mostly media buys. Neither of them have found a way to do something better, cheaper, or something wholly new.
As far as Obama being a capitalist because he's been forced to purchase at a fair value the goods and services he has, I'm reminded of a quote that was discussed on VC earlier this week "The capitalists will sell us the rope which we will hang them with".
"Mit der Patriotismus, Ist es Amerika ueber alles?"
Also definiert ja man das Wort "Patriotismus," nicht wahr?
"In telling me to change, and not him, are you agreeing with him? If so, on what basis?"
I was addressing your (mis?)interpretation. Certainly, I'd like for the Love it or Leave it folks to express their love by being more imaginative about what America can be vis-a-vis what is it, but that was beside the point at hand.
So the words:
If you'd like it not to be, change and convince others to do so as well
are your interpretation of TDP's sentiments, rather than your own?
"The argument looks silly to me: Because I support Obama, my patriotism is contingent on his election, or the adoption of policies he favors. Is that supposed to be the point?"
Unless you'd like to claim that Obama is a leftist, either you've stolen a base, or TP was incorrect in surmising your leftism.
I would say that the American Left's patriotism (which for me is of a different stripe than, say, German patriotism, as it is rooted in the liberal values upon which this country was fortunately constituted) is often too much contingent upon adherence to ideals at odds with those liberal ones, or at least leadership by those of a particular party allegiance.
In other words, I'm an American exceptionalist and will be until the rest of the world is liberal enough to make the values of the Founders unexceptional. It's getting there.
Ubi libertas ibi patria
Hey, if Obama wants to run the country on the illegal donations from foreigners, I'm cool with that.
"are your interpretation of TDP's sentiments, rather than your own?"
Nope, those are mine eleventy-one percent. Obama knows how to let the real and ideal play together like nice little girls and boys. You should watch him.
And then on the subject of patriotism:
So America is a leftist socialist country, and leftists are anti-American because they want America to be a leftist socialist country and that has never been the case and could never be the case.
Without knowing TP's definition of leftist it's impossible to say whether I fit it. I personally consider myself a liberal, very far from a "leftist."
What I suspect is that TP does not draw a distinction and considers both Obama and myself "leftists." In other words, he applies your notion of the "contingent patriotism" of leftism (not sure I agree, but I think it's irrelevant to this discussion) to ordinary liberals, or more broadly to those who disagree with him. I think, as I suggested before, that this is typical of too many conservatives. I don't think they are making subtle arguments about leftist thinking at all, but are just substituting name-calling for thought.
We were gradually recovering from FDR's nonsense.
It has been noted that Obama if elected is likely to tip the fraction of the electorate who in net pay no taxes past 50%. I do believe that may well be a tipping point past which America no longer meaningfully exists as a nation more worthwhile than others, because its worth is (was?) in the respect for liberty inhered to it's body politic.
And if Obama is elected and that is a point of no return, then perhaps some future second American revolution will be the one that works.
Because the one started at Lexington will have failed.
Yes, Obama's policies are un-american, they are socialist, anti-liberty. It doesn't speak against that that those ideas have had some electoral success in the past anymore than it does that racism has had electoral success herein the past, because that ideology was anti-liberty as well.
In each case, this nation was choosing death by inches the more it gave those ideologies electoral success.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Except it is an issue in and of itself the Obama wants to promote more socialist policies than his opponent.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
More socialist policies than his opponent John McCain, who is himself a socialist who supports progressive taxation and the earned income tax credit.
What problem do you have with prudence?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
That's right, geostr. I didn't hear Obama mention refundable credits. Or maybe I heard it while I was doing something, and it didn't take. Or maybe I knew it last week but by last night that memory slot was occupied by the turnout models for Gallup tracking polls. Regardless, it was late and I was lazy, so I admitted I didn't know it and I asked if he said it instead of Googling to hide (and cure) my ignorance. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for spoiling your fantasy of an infallible VC commentariat. But then I never claimed to be the best and the brightest.
I would agree that recently Americans learned that socialism is a powerful movement among black churches given their growing embrace of “Black Liberation Theology.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s tirade regarding 9-11 was an illuminating view into the hateful, anti-American and Marxists nature of that theology - the congregation, a microcosm of a black liberation church.
What was the difference in the sentiment of Reverend Wright’s congregation against the United States and the sentiment of the 9-11 terrorists. Not much.
Black Racism is just as bad as white racism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVz-xjUnNg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related
Obama's Pastor Taught Obama To Hate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=related
Black Liberation Theology Was Taught At Obama’s Church– Therefore Obama MUST have known and shared Wright’s Marxist (Karl Marx Co-Founder of Communism) and Anti-American views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cone_(theologian)
All this talk about Obama not being a Socialist because what he wants to do doesn't meet the classical technical definition of Socialism is so much blather. He is a Socialist. Born a red diaper baby, this man has surrounded himself Socialists, but with a cleaver twist. He wraps himself in a racial security to ward off criticism of the obvious. Thus we get the title of this thread: "Socialist" a Code Word for Black.
If true, then America is already a socialist country. And if that's true, then where is the harm?
Have you been reading the financial pages lately?
A long chain is still a chain.
Well, suppose it is a racist attack. So what? Race is a big factor for lots of people. We live in a society organized around tribal identifiers. Race is one of them. Why deny it?
Because that's the Left's actual goal: to inure you to its existence via overusing the term into meaninglessness. Once that's been done to the point of turing everyone into a cynic who thinks that "everyone's a racist", then they can finally abandon the pretense that racism is "right wing" and openly embrace the racists in their own ranks (where racism, as a species of collectivism, has always belonged).
After all, if "socialism" is code for "black", what the hell does "national socialist" mean?
"If true, then America is already a socialist country. And if that's true, then where is the harm?"
America has suffered from creeping Socialism up until now. Obama wants to accelerate that creep into a run. A small dose of a poison will make you sick, but a large dose can be fatal.
"National black"(?)
[Obama has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and employed/employs thousands.
Hey, if Obama wants to run the country on the illegal donations from foreigners, I'm cool with that.]
Excellent!
He should also tax all foreigners living abroad.
yes, I have. And the lesson seems to be that when big financial institutions are unregulated, they do dastardly things. Therefore, the concensus has been formed within the US that more regulation is needed, not less.
Having had a nice dinner, with friends and wine, I have reflected on your interesting idea of "contingent patriotism."
I think it describes very well much of the patriotism of the right. It seems to me to be behind the whole notion of the "pro-America part of the country," the "real Virginia," and similar phrases that right-wingers are fond of. It seems that they care only for small southern and western towns, and disdain the parts of the country like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and so on, where, it happens, many thousands times more Americans actually live.
In other words, the right's patriotism, much more than the left's, is for a small segment of the country that endorses its politics and values. It has no enthusiasm for big cities, immigrants (legal or not), rich and diverse culture, or any of the other things that make the US a wonderful and fascinating country.
I think the idea of contingent patriotism is useful, but I think if you look you will find it in some places you haven't thought of.
Can you tell us what the dastardly thing was?
And then can we talk about the part that government played in the current mess. Can we talk about the arm-twisting to get the mortgage market to make risky loans to lower income people? The implied backing of mortgage instruments that led the private market to take on more risk that was prudent? The lack of serious oversight by congress for the GSAs such as Fannie Mae?
"I think it describes very well much of the patriotism of the right. It seems to me to be behind the whole notion of the "pro-America part of the country," the "real Virginia," and similar phrases that right-wingers are fond of. It seems that they care only for small southern and western towns, and disdain the parts of the country like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and so on, where, it happens, many thousands times more Americans actually live."
Might I suggest a few more friends who drink beer?
I find your smug tribalism tiring. People who can appreciate a fine wine should have advanced beyond tu quoque in their moral reasoning. Again, follow Obama.
"In other words, he applies your notion of the "contingent patriotism" of leftism (not sure I agree, but I think it's irrelevant to this discussion) to ordinary liberals, or more broadly to those who disagree with him. I think, as I suggested before, that this is typical of too many conservatives."
All true.
"I don't think they are making subtle arguments about leftist thinking at all, but are just substituting name-calling for thought."
No, if you'll review the original claim, that is exactly the argument he was (perhaps erroneously, in your case) making.
"Yes, Obama's policies are un-american, they are socialist, anti-liberty."
All of them? Why so totalitarian?
Given the fall of Rome, a salient feature of which was centuries of tax-base shrinkage, the passing of the 50% threshold in the United States is indeed troublesome. But couldn't one just as well place the responsibility with GOP anti-tax zealotry which has led to cutting taxes becoming such an all-purpose electoral winner?
Might there not be some consistencies on the left and among liberals sympathetic to your pleas for re-widening the tax base? Why see only enmity there?
Hey, if Obama wants to run the country on the illegal donations from foreigners, I'm cool with that.]"
Hello, from the fact-based world. Is that a matter of fact, or just another snide comment?
LN: Can you tell us what the dastardly thing was?
A couple of dastardlies off the top of my head...
Lobbying to remove broker/dealer 12:1 leverage limits.
Leverage ratios climbing to 30-40:1 or more.
Using that leverage to become heavily involved in the $1,000,000,000,000 derivatives market, most of which involves (OTC) transactions with no margin or capital supervision.
Using off-balance-sheet vehicles to hide risky investments.
I am not supporting Obama because he is a Socialist. Plain and simple.
"Virtually no one (except for some residents of Berkeley CA) thinks that a Gosplan system will work anywhere except in a
toy economyK-12 education system."There, fixed that for you.
Nearby Richmond CA could not run its K-12 education and went bankrupt in 1991. In 2003 Oakland CA also ran out of money and was taken over by the state. Just this year the whole city of Vallejo CA went into bankruptcy. In all these cases the story is pretty much the same. They overspent, usually on salaries, and the labor unions would not compromise. In California's version of Gosplan, the laws of arithmetic get suspended.
With the Democrats generally in loud agreement,and louder agreement than the Republicans.
With the Democrats generally in loud agreement,and louder agreement than the Republicans.
With the Democrats generally in loud agreement,and louder agreement than the Republicans.
With the Democrats generally in loud agreement,and louder agreement than the Republicans.
In fact, Bush and McCain tried multiple time to rein in the Democrats , and each time they were shouted down by Franks and Dodd, both Democrats.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
And the same idiot Democrats want to run our health care.
Notice how the estimates of where Obama's higger taxes kick in keep getting lowered, first by Biden, and then by Richardson?
All three of them can do math--they were just lying when $250,000.00 was said before.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
"... yes, I have. And the lesson seems to be that when big financial institutions are unregulated, they do dastardly things."
Yes they do. And here is the exact rule change that made high leverage possible for broker dealers.
We have another big financial institution that's unregulated: The Federal Reserve. I'm afraid we might need to go back on the gold standard because they are running amok. Look at this graph of the adjusted monetary base from the fed. The monetary base M0, is the most liquid form of money. You should be shocked and frightened at the sight of this graph. We must take the printing press away from them. The US is bailing out everything in sight. It should trouble you that a bunch of trivial shit is getting talked about in this campaign when while the financial house is burning down. Any sane and intelligent person must vote "None of the Above" on Tuesday.
There ain't no "None Of The Above". There's "Less Harmful" and "More Harmful".
McCain is the less harmful.
Voting for anyone else is half a vote for, "More Harmful".
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Everybody knows that.
But, as has been said so often, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
And, did you notice how much more effort it was to refute the lie than to actually utter it? The liars win by wearing you down.
The regulation which seems to have started this was the CRA insisting financial institutions lend to people who had no chance of paying it back. That was regulation, not deregulation.
But everybody knows that, too. But it's easier to say "Bush's cronies!" or something similar.
And the catalytic thing about it is that anyone with even slightly better credit of a non-quota skin color "rightly" insisted on getting at least as "good" a deal. Good for them in the very short term, bad for everyone in the long term.
I keep on hearing people insisting the CRA had nothing to do with it, because it was only behind a fraction of the bad loans. What they aren't understanding is, the CRA began the destruction of reasonable, race-blind lending standards in the 1990's, which matured to the destruction of any reasonable standard for anyone by the early 2000's.
And almost solely Democratic Party fingerprints are all over it.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Correct again. But, as I say, look at the effort compared to the lie....
I find your smug tribalism tiring. People who can appreciate a fine wine should have advanced beyond tu quoque in their moral reasoning. Again, follow Obama.
Not a tu quoque at all. Just applying the concept more broadly, looking for more examples, so to speak. In other words, I'm not arguing that contingent patriotism on the right justifies it on the left, or necessarily makes the description false. I'm just pointing out that there are other examples around.
"I don't think they are making subtle arguments about leftist thinking at all, but are just substituting name-calling for thought."
No, if you'll review the original claim, that is exactly the argument he was (perhaps erroneously, in your case) making.
Let's review some of TP's comments:
And then,
Not much subtlety in TP's views. He refers to "one party." The class of people who want to destroy the country is pretty broad, in his view - anyone to the left of McCain. When you classify all Democrats as idiots, and all Obama's policies as "socialist" (hence automatically destructive) you are not making subtle arguments at all.
Maybe we are talking past each other. You say he accuses "leftists" of contingent patriotism. I say he is accusing pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, including Obama and myself, of wanting to destroy the country, of being anti-liberty, etc.,
I agree that part of TP's description is that we - I'm certainly among those he condemns - are contingent patriots. But I don't think that's his "accusation" at all. I don't think he finds fault with the contingent patriotism that is found on the right. It's not contingent patriotism he criticizes. It's a very broad set of political ideas. So the concept does not really describe the core of his argument.
He does not say,
"These people are evil because their patriotism is contingent on their ideas being adopted."
He says,
"These people are evil because their ideas are destructive, and those who hold such ideas are unpatriotic," or perhaps "are not loyal to the US in its current form," would be a better way to put it.
Sorry if you find me "smugly tribalist," by the way. Lots of smugness going around these days, I find.
I am skeptical of your literacy.
Rather I should say 'neo-socialist', because he does not advocate Government's owning industry - just controlling through regulation and taking profits through high taxation.
The government now seems to think they have a better claim to my income that I do.
I trusted you to find the pony. Admittedly the shit is deep. Here it is:
byomtov said:
"I don't know if I buy the whole "racial code word" argument, but I do think "socialist" is part of the whole "real America/fake America" smear, which is pretty disgusting and divisive in itself."
TP replied:
"That's because you are patriotic towards an America which does not exist, can not exist, and the creation of which should not be attempted. You are leftist."
BTW, what's with the bitter clinging to the "real/fake" stuff? Economic anxiety? The quote I saw is run-of-the-mail boilerplate Keillorism.
The level of pro-Americanism in small towns is in fact more bug than feature, the cognizance of which among conscientious small-towners likely accounts for a good chunk of Obama's support there. But if the prof down the hall is ever going on about how pro-environmental he and his ANSWER buds are, I can't see that the optimal response is to go around loudly denouncing him for calling you anti-environmental.
The problem on the right isn't contingent patriotism of any sort, they serve and die to defend the whole country, no matter how corrupt and degraded they consider parts of it to have become. The problem on the right is letting patriotism overshadow all other considerations. The sermon this morning from my flyover church's pulpit on this All Saints Day did not fail to mention that the earliest saints were persecuted for refusing to worship Rome.
But your unshakable gaze toward those quarters is depriving you of an opportunity to examine your (heck, our) own. Adversaries are much more generous and incisive in their critiques than friends.
Leverage ratios climbing to 30-40:1 or more.
Using that leverage to become heavily involved in the $1,000,000,000,000 derivatives market, most of which involves (OTC) transactions with no margin or capital supervision.
Using off-balance-sheet vehicles to hide risky investments."
Did you forget their support for the Clinon era Senate's 95-0 vote to exempt credit default swaps from regulation? Or how about their support for the overwhelming prior vote in the Senate to prohibit the CFTC from regulating credit default swaps? In 1998, the CFTC told them exactly what would happen, and it did. Seems the entire US Senate was dastardly in setting the regulations. And the president who signed the legislation? Dastardly? Who has not acted dastardly? Does pointing a finger at one dastard exonerate the other dastards? What reason do we have to trust one dastard over another?
Everything anyone might need to know about you was summed up perfectly here, by LN.
You said that America has been a socialist country since the 1930s. But you also said that leftists are trying to create an America that "does not exist." In other words, America is a socialist country, but it's also not a socialist country.
And when caught in your contradiction, you say America just has "a few socialist policies." So which is it? Are we a socialist country? Or just a country with "a few socialist policies?"
You are doing nothing but regurgitating slogans. You think that doing so often, and with great conviction, will create the illusion that your slogans are something deeper than slogans. But they're not.
Is your google broken? Here are the words that Palin said recently in North Carolina:
Then there's Michelle Bachmann, who suggested that Obama and other Democrats have "anti-American" views. Palin and others have suggested that some parts of the country are more "real" or more "pro-America." A congressman recently said this: "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Please show us your proof that Obama has accepted any substantial amount of "illegal donations from foreigners."
But it's funny you should mention the issue of whether or not we should "run the country" with foreign money. The GOP was able to run a war we didn't need, with money we didn't have, by borrowing huge sums from China and elsewhere. So our kids get to inherit a huge Chinese credit-card bill.
In typical GOP style, you are focusing on tiny amounts that don't matter, and missing the huge sums that do.
It would be nice if we had a two-party system, but I'm picking the candidate who takes us a bit more in that direction.
Sigh. I was answering a specific question about the financial industry. Dealing with rabid supporters of both parties is like being a mother to the brattiest 2 year old twins in existence. "Wahhh! He did it first!"
I think we disagree on our interpretation of the Palin quote, and similar statements, such as that by Bachmann. That Palin's spokesperson disavowed anything nefarious is unconvincing.
This is, in my opinion, part of a long right-wing tradition of questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with their views. Indeed, the world's most famous plumber was on Fox not long ago, questioning Obama's loyalty.
Is conservative patriotism "contingent?" You say no. I disagree. that conservatives love the country the way it is does not prove they would also love it if it were much different - more like say, Canada or Sweden, both well-known as bastions of tyranny.
So liberals want the country to be . . . colder?
Read more Oakeshott (always a good idea). We're *conservative*. We don't WANT to lose the things we've come to love. And all change involves loss.
Really, it's not that hard to understand us. You Jacobins must not be trying.
"Is conservative patriotism "contingent?" You say no. I disagree. that conservatives love the country the way it is does not prove they would also love it if it were much different - more like say, Canada or Sweden, both well-known as bastions of tyranny."
Most conservatives I know think it already is. I keep responding to, and often agreeing with, your concerns about Red/Small-Town/Conservative America in hopes that eventually you will get back to my original point. Those hopes are dimming. Still seems like tu quoque from here.
BTW, my church is likely going at least 70% Obama.
As a matter of fact....