I can't believe they still let David Frum be a conservative

By Richard K. Barry

I don't know David Frum. I know people who know him (or used to know him). I even spent a number of my early years in Canada watching and listening to David's mother, Barbara Frum, a respected Canadian television and radio journalist, who died far too young. If you follow the Canadian scene at all, you would know that the Frums are considered to be serious people.

Some time ago David decided to take his career to the U.S. and even worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush for a while. At some point it seems that he, while holding onto his conservative political beliefs, decided that he was having a hard time with the radicalism coming from so much of the right-wing. Not to speak for him, but it appeared to me that he was having difficulty with the lack of cogent argument coming from so many on the right, especially the Tea Party right.

They weren't arguing the facts, they were simply mouthing platitudes that they believed to be supported by an understanding of what it means to be an American. For conservatives like Frum, who lives to argue the facts, that was crazy making.

I don't support Frum's brand of politics, his conservatism. He says that he's all about free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. Sounds okay in a sense but we all know that the devil is in the details so, no, he and I wouldn't agree about much once we started to get into the details.

But when he speaks, I believe that he is working hard to make a good case and that he would be open to other ideas if presented intelligently. As I said, I don't know the man, but that's the feeling I get. I think we also know that this kind of reasonableness on Frum's part has not always made him popular on the right and that strikes me, from my perspective, as a good thing.

I came across a piece that Frum wrote recently for CNN on the debt ceiling talks and I would like to recommend it to you. Not only does it makes sense, but it reminds me of the way I used to debate with conservatives about politics and economics. It used to be about positions and facts and arguments and maybe a good faith attempt to see things differently.

In the current context, here are three things that David Frum wants us to think about.

1. Unemployment is a more urgent problem than the debt.

2. The deficit is a symptom of America's economic problems not the cause.

3. The time to cut is after the economy recovers.

I don't intend to have this discussion here, only to say that America would be a better place if our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, were able to have discussions on statements like these based on facts and not blind ideology.

Good on Mr. Frum for suggesting it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is the Tea Party over?

By Richard K. Barry

Last week, Roll Call reported that organizers of a major Tea Party convention that had been planned for the fall was being cancelled due to low registration.

Organizers had hoped that the event, called the Freedom Jamboree, would provide an opportunity for Republican presidential candidates to court the conservative movement, and, apparently, both Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum had confirmed they would attend.

It seems that the twenty-one local Tea Party groups which began organizing the event did it in order to "reclaim the movement from national umbrella groups and offer an alternative to the annual fall Tea Party rally on the National Mall."

As one of the organizer's told Roll Call, "We were doing it because we were fed up with the infighting that these umbrella groups had done in 2010."

Interesting to note that this is the second Tea Party event cancelled because of lack of interest. Last year, a Tennessee-based group, Tea Party Nation, cancelled an event that was to have taken place in Las Vegas. They had their excuses, but, really, nobody wanted to come.

At a time when Republican politicians are being pushed around by the so-called Tea Party movement, it does beg the question as to who is doing the pushing. If these people can't generate enough interest to pull together a national event or two at the grass roots level, does it mean that we were all correct in our assessment of this thing as an astroturf movement?

The truth is that these things are never that simple. The Koch Brothers / Fox News / Sarah Palin type catalysts have been essential, but movements come into being because a subset of the population is ready for the message. I know some will howl, but the mass psychology of fascism is instructive here.

My point is that I don't deny that the Tea Party has been a mass movement, only that it will have to start organizing itself like a political party, or actually join one already in existence, if it hopes to continue to have any influence.

Yes, there is a reason that political parties exist and that is because it takes so damn much effort to aggregate interest across the country and give it direction. The Tea Party may have claimed pride in the fact that it has no leader, but after a while that just doesn't work anymore.

In the short term, if you throw enough money at any movement, no matter how diffuse, it's going to have an impact, hence the astroturfism of the Tea Party movement. The hard work starts when the "movement" begins to mature and requires centralization and leadership. Eventually that will mean that the Tea Party either folds into the Republican Party or goes away.

Not surprising that one of the organizers of the Freedom Jamboree wrote to fellow activists saying that "[i]t appears the Tea Party horse is riderless, and riding off in all directions at once."

In fact, a basic truth, whether from the left or right, is that social movements can influence politics, but they are not the same as a political organization. They are a blunt instrument without the ability or structure to make the kinds of decisions required by politics -- without the ability to bring it all together.

We are seeing this in Washington now with the debt ceiling negotiations. The Tea Party Caucus can't compromise, can't negotiate because its base is not an organization but rather an idea.

Again, in the short term you can get a bunch of people motivated to show up to mass events for the sake of idea. Many wonderful gatherings have taken place on the premise. But, after a while, you need the organization, you need the party or people will just stop showing up.

Too bad, though, because what this country really needs right now is another convention of colorfully-dressed people doing their best Founding Father impersonations.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Daddy State

By Carl 

The latest news out of Wisconsin is pretty good for progressives and unions, although it could certainly reverse at any point.

Governor Scott Walker's attempt to bully unions and public sector workers into falling on the sword of fiscal responsibility for the mishaps of the rich and powerful has drawn some very intense scrutiny and to be frank, Gov. Walker has done a pretty horrendous job of justifying things. To claim that government sector pensions are out of proportion to the budget, then to exempt the largest pensions in the basket (the police and firefighter unions, many of whom can collect after only 20 years on the job... imagine retiring at full benefits at the age of 41), is one of the single most transparently ludicrous claims ever made by a public official.

See? The Teabaggers are just like any other politicians, only stupider and louder! This is good news for America. 

George Lakoff has it about right when he says, "Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life."

Fascinating article, and I suggest you read it. Go on. I'll wait.

*Examining nails. Making fresh pot of coffee. Whistling "Wind Beneath My--*

Oh? You're back? Good. Let me go on...

The slow erosion, which is happening faster and faster as it gathers momentum, of what President Obama has called an ethic of excellence has been the underlying goal of Republicans since at least the days of Lee Atwater (who later renounced his assault on liberals and the liberal principles that created the greatest nation on earth) and likely since Ronald Reagan's inauguration as I highlighted yesterday.

Lakoff's suggestion that the conservative national image, of a patriarchy, is pretty valid and obviously wrong-headed, as any parent of any teen or anyone who studies the newspaper on a regular basis can tell you. You cannot change behaviour by diktat. You can enforce laws, true, but that's not a change in behaviour and if any behaviour does get changed, it's the behaviour that allowed the person to get caught in the first place (i.e. being too trusting of friends who rat one out).

Issue an edict (e.g., "You cannot smoke in here") and someone will start to probe it for loopholes if they want to smoke in there. Maybe they'll do it after hours, or use a can of Lysol to cover the scent. If they get caught, they'll just find other, more subtle ways to justify continuing the behavior you find offensive.

In other words, the claim that by some miracle, personal responsibility is enforceable is childish and fantastical. It simply will not happen. If we could trust people to act in the best interests of themselves while somehow not harming their neighbors flies in the face of millions of years of theft, greed, jealousy, anger, rage, fear, aggression, and passion.

All of which lie at the very heart of humanity. The evidence is inescapable: conservatives who believe this tripe have no business running a kindergarten class, much less a state or a nation. The very act of having to hide their original intent, to destroy the progressive "nanny state" by masking it with budget deficits and subsequent cuts... the Norquist Model, let's call it... ALONE speaks to the childishness and naivete of the whole venture.

As Governor Walker is, at great pain, finding out.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Our Better Nature

By Mustang Bobby.

After looking at the way things have been going in Washington and around the country for the last couple of years, it's obvious that the Republicans have come to the conclusion that they don't care if they hurt other people in order to accomplish their agenda.  That is all that matters to them, and if there's some collateral damage to those other people, well, that's just too bad.

Look at some of the things they've stood up against: healthcare reform, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, healthcare for the people made sick by responding to 9/11, extension of jobless benefits for those people thrown out of work by the recession the Republicans helped cause, tax relief for the middle class, aid to education and infrastructure, assistance to corporations that employ a large number of the middle class, immigration reform, food safety; the list goes on and on, and in every case the Republicans mounted a battle against them.

And in just about every case, the opposition wasn't based on practicality or the lack of need.  It was couched in abstract and hypothetical terms; health insurance is a privilege, gay people are icky, capitalism shouldn't reward bad decisions, no one should pay taxes to subsidize people who weren't born with trust funds, and what's wrong with finding a rat hair in your hot dog, anyway?  Man up!

This GOP philosophy is often braced up by their own hypocrisy; for example, the number of Republicans who applied for money for pet projects from the stimulus package they voted against is legion, as are those who rail against undocumented workers but have them cleaning their bathroom and trimming their lawn.  And if you look at the recent activity on Capitol Hill it's even more obvious.  The failure to repeal an odious and un-American bill such as Don't Ask Don't Tell in the light of the support of its repeal by the military brass, the troops on the ground, and just about everyone else, liberal or conservative, who knows what it's like to serve with gay men and lesbians is a case in point.  The opposition to repeal is based not on fact but on fear and an attempt to appeal to the ignorance and bigotry; always a safe bet in politics.

The same thing applies to the extension of jobless benefits.  It touches millions of people regardless of their politics; unemployed blue-collar workers who embrace Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber as well as the single mom trying to get by as a cart wrangler at K-Mart.  But if you can get on Fox News and tell the rest of the barely-employed that the people without jobs are lazy loafers who need to learn the hard lesson of an honest day's work for less pay, then of course you can justify claiming that it's really hard to make a decent living if the tax rate on everything you make over $250,000 is going up by three whole percent.

It's not that they are all intentionally cruel; they're just thoughtless and immature.  The natural instinct of a person who has achieved some sense of maturity and obligation to the world outside of themselves is to want to help others without trying to first think about what's in it for them or how they can possibly profit from it, and they just don't seem to get that there is more to being a citizen -- and a human being -- than being rich and famous.  And it's easy to be a bully, especially when you're dealing with an opposition that falls for the "Hey, your shoe's untied!" bit nearly every time.

History and human nature has proven that over time the better angels of our nature win out.  Progress against oppression and the platitudes of tradition and ossification has been made, sometimes swiftly, sometimes at a glacial pace, but always moving forward.  But it is hard to look far to the future and counsel patience when you see the solution and the promise just out of reach and it is kept that way by those who are doing it only because they can.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)