Adventures in Irrationality: Just now on MSNBC

[Political Heretic]

Sunday, 9:00am Pacific time.

Karen Finney, Democratic Strategist said, "some people thought the stimulus was too small, others thought it was too big which probably means it was just about right."

Wow.

Really?

Perhaps people who thought it was too big were those who oppose Keynesian economic approaches wholesale (thus opposed all stimulus spending in the first place) and those who thought it was too small were Keynesians who supported the idea of stimulus but argued that the type and size of this stimulus was not nearly enough to do the job.

The idea that some middle-of-the-road approach must be "right" if two "sides" don't like it is so ludicrous, but it is indicative of a major trend in political establishment thinking today. We have big problems with our 2 dimensional linear right-center-left type of thinking about politics.

For example, "extremism" isn't just about a so-called "far left" or "far right" position. Extremism is about irrational absolutism, dogma, cognitive bias by which one refuses to consider evidence that does not reinforce a belief already held, blind certainty that one is right, etc. There are "extremists" on the so-called far right, and the so-called far left, and the so-called "middle" or "center."

Furthermore, there's multiple dimensions to political positions. Political Compass has a nice test that plots your political perspective on a x-y axis - giving you authoritarian left, libertarian left, authoritarian right, libertarian right as quadrants. That's not a concept that makes it into mainstream American politics.

There's also a narrow limit to the political spectrum in U.S. politics. What's called "left" in establishment U.S. politics is considered "right" most other places in the world. Actual Left politics as they might be described in the rest of the world are not even allowed into political discussion in our establishment system.

Our political spectrum is one set by the elite consensus of the establishment powers - some movement a little to "the left" or "the right" is tolerated within this basic framework, as long as the pillar assumptions aren't seriously questioned. Those who do question such pillars are labeled "fringe" "looney" and marginalized.

[RC]

1. Wow! I haven't read any unvarnished truth like this for so long.

The last 2 paragraphs are absolutely dead center on!

[Buzz Clik]

6. You honestly believe that Dick Cheney and Joe Biden are identical twins?

This kind of rhetoric is designed to pressure Democratic politicians to emphasize the differences between themselves and the GOP. It's a tricky game that can work but generally backfires. Rove's strategy of stressing the need for an anti-gay marriage amendment just before an election worked. His other attempts failed.

Take advantage of the power while you have it, all the while recognizing that politics are regional, and those in Congress will not stray too far from their constituents.

[bertman]

9. Since Political Heretic has not responded yet, let me point out that he does NOT say they are

identical twins. He says that there is not a lot of separation between the politics of the parties.

So, emphasizing the differences of the two parties is a "tricky game" that generally backfires? Does that mean that we should just emphasize that the Democrats are really NOT so different from the Republicans, except for that (D) or (R) after their name? After all, that might not be something that Karl Rove could capitalize on. Very interesting take on political "strategy": be the same as your opponents so they can't use the difference in your party and theirs against you.

I wish I could say that there is a BIG difference between the two parties, but given current political manuevering, that's a difficult statement to make. The party leaders of the Democrats seem to be afraid to stand for anything progressive (barely left-wing) unless the public is overwhelmingly in favor of it, as determined by polls and constituent reaction. Left to their own devices they have shown time and again that they will toe the corporate line. For the latest, best example, refer to the fight for public-option vs. single payer, instead of "let the insurance companies tell us what they're willing to give us."

Politics may be regional, but strong leadership coupled with good strategic planning can convince the public that national issues are important. See Karl Rove playbook for specific examples--one being anti-gay marriage. The problem is that Democrats have a weak national strategy (What is it??) and weak leadership (don't get me started on Reid and Pelosi and now Kaine)

[Buzz Clik]

14. Fucking amazing. You extrapolated every statement of mine into some insane land.

I won't respond to your hyperbolic bullshit.

If you want a response, read my post for detail, and respond only to what I said.

[Buzz Clik]

15. ..

..

[RC]

12. I really am starting to have problem with people putting words in my mouth

by people that obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. The OP is not talking about individuals in any case.
Reread the last two paragraphs again, or read them for the first time as the case may be.
That "...elite consensus of the establishment powers -" are people mostly outside of our government. In other words this country is not being governed by the governed, but by a few powerful, very rich elite, doing their own thing, regardless of what the governed want.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Okay. Now I'm convinced that at least the radical fringe of both parties use the same rhetoric.

"...elite consensus of the establishment powers -" is the identical, meaningless accusation used by Palin against the Democrats and the socialists against anyone who is not a socialist. Since you are only talking in generalities, I guess that's what remains.

However, when you get down to specifics, such as Cheney vs Biden, the last two paragraphs of the OP disintegrate into so much drivel.

[Political Heretic]

19. Who decides what is "fringe?"

Fringe as compared to what?

Elite consensus isn't really a vacuous term, nor is referring to the establishment. I understand that some people can throw around terms like that without really having any idea what they are talking about. But that's not me. So let me explain what I'm talking about:

Among powerful interests with a huge financial investment in government, there is a basic consensus about what is acceptably "mainstream" and what is, well as you say, "fringe."

Those individuals and institutions that invest millions and millions of dollars in candidates directly, in lobbyists, in lawyers, in action committees, and so on exert strong shaping control over what the spectrum of politics looks like. Anyone trying to seriously deny this would be the one looking insane.

These individuals and institutions have as their primary motivating interests profit seeking and ensuring the sustainability of their own power and control. That's not some sort of conspiracy theory. It is not only common knowledge, but something these organizations freely admit to. No one even trying to hide this reality.

These powers that be don't need to micromanage their interest. A certain range of difference in political ideas does not particularly threaten them. To quote a post made long ago by an anonymous source who really hit the nail on the head:

It is important to understand that elite consensus itself is not static and can shift in moderate degrees, but it has definitive boundaries of which you can not cross and still be a viable player within the electoral system. These boundaries exist to the left and right within that consensus, but the institutional bias of the system is much harsher towards any moves to the left. This is because in its essence elite opinion is anti-populist and primarily concerned with protecting the fundamentals of the established economic order.

Every national campaign is in fact a dual conversation, one targeting voters while the other is directed towards the political, media, and economic elites. The purpose of the message targeting the first group is to win votes. The messages to the latter group is designed to form elite consensus, first for it not to correlate against you and secondly to have it help you win and eventually govern.

Surviving the contradictions of these dual dialogues is the primary element that makes a successful national campaign. Let's examine the primary public policy issues and areas of discussion, and examine what the boundaries of elite opinion are on how they contradict or mirror public opinion.

Economics Trade and Globalization
The elite consensus on these issues is solidly to the right of public opinion. This is especially the case on the issues of trade and globalization. Support for supposed free markets, free trade and globalization are almost universal and unquestioned within elite circles.

This is the establishment issue, all else can be argued and debated but to question the system of privatized profit and socialized cost is the fastest road to political oblivion for any candidate for national office.

Within the confines of elite consensus no cost is ever too exorbitant in "reassuring" Wall Street and "calming the financial markets". No better example of this than the prompt and generous response of the Federal Reserve and the Congress to the recent financial crisis in the housing markets. With hardly any opposition the United States Government nationalized the losses which resulted from the bursting of the housing bubble. There where no calls of prosecution, lectures on personal responsibility, fears of creeping socialism or demands for conditional structural adjustments from bankers and investment houses. The scandal in fact is not the crime in this case, which is to be expected, but in the silence of the public and the political class to this public thievery.

It is precisely because of the iron grip of this consensus, that even if we have a new Democratic President and an enhanced Democratic majorities in the Congress, there will be no legislation signed into law to make it easier to organize workers, provide universal health care or deal with our ever widening class and income divide in the United States.


Social Issues
Elite consensus on the issues of race, sex and role of faith in public life are to the left of public opinion, the only area in which this is the case. Elite opinion is overwhelmingly secular, pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and hostile to overt displays of racism.

Tolerance and liberalism on this front is a very useful tool, since it buys political space to be more conservative on the more important money issues. It also enjoys the advantage of making the right enemies, after all who wants to be on Pat Robertson's side during weekend dinner parties at the Hamptons.

When social conservative complain about the "Liberal Media" they are not wrong, but only in regard to their issues. The contempt of the American elite for the religious right is quite real. What social conservatives misunderstand is that the hostility against them is not because the threat their ideas represent but only a display of the traditional contempt that the merciless strong have for people they consider to be the feeble minded weak.

The significance of the religious right in our politics is only in the wonderful diversions their issues create. Issues that feed a war between urban educated middle classes against the more numerous, the ever more frustrated lower income fundamentalists on issues that are unsolvable in nature.


Foreign Policy
Elite consensus on this issue is center to right, discussion are allowed on the mechanics of running the empire and the management of the military industrial complex, but never regarding the reality of its existence, its necessity or usefulness to most Americans.

Within this narrow context there are always code words and phrases used to differentiate one candidate from another.

Words and phrases like "all options are on the table", "realism", "toughness" and "experience" are simply a sliding scale on the willingness to kill in order to defend the interests of our ownership and governing class. This is an especially critical issue for Senator Obama, considering that most victims of our killing are non-whites. His vulnerability to the charges of dual loyalty on this issue, almost certainly means no end to wars, expansions of foreign military bases and occupations of third world countries under his watch.

The made up charges of having a radical minister, or being a Muslim, a Palestinian sympathizer or being married to a black nationalist was meant to limit his room to maneuver on these issues even if there was never any indication he was ever serious about moving in a bold progressive direction.

With his "weakness" defined as his associations with progressive movements, ideas or individuals, he can do nothing but run to the other direction for the next four years if he ascends to the office of President. This is the genius of McCarthyism at work, fifty years after its namesake split hell wide open.


The politics of Personal Responsibility
Personal responsibility is a legitimate issue when discussed in the context of family and personal lives. When dragged into the political arena it is an issue that is entirely an elite construct. The actual positions of the elite are not particularly relevant. What is important is that the issues get discussed not what results from that discussion. The relevance of this issue is not in what it illuminates but in what it hides.

The recent enthusiastic embrace of Senator Obama of the call for "responsibility" from inner city black fathers is a prime example of this issue. What he is really saying is, "I will never blame the owners of the country for the social problems caused by their economic policies." Senator Obama knows better than anyone that you can eliminate most of the problems of inner city fathers in a generation with a decent educational system and living wage jobs.

But all systems of power need a convincing and unlikable enemy, which can bury the contradictions of the system. In our case incoherent, undereducated black urban males fit the bill perfectly. They are being attacked not because they are a threat to the power structure, but precisely because they are not.

What voters are expected to believe is that after a 30-year class war against the bottom 90% of income earners, the source of their troubles are black rappers and inner city fathers and not criminality on Wall Street or a corrupt political system. The road to the White House over the past 30 years has been paved by pretending to believe the absurdity that the individuals who pull the levers of power over people's lives are named Willie Horton, Sister Souljah and Ludicrous, and not Robert Rubin, Phil Gramm and Hank Paulson.
If as a society we are prepared to believe this, then we have lost the stuff that makes free men.

You have interjected a non sequitor with this whole Dick Cheney / Job Biden thing. No one at any point said there were no differences between individuals. However neither VP or administration has done anything that falls outside the parameters of acceptability for powerful interests that invest millions and millions and millions of dollars into both parties and all politics. There are some places where this administration shows signs of potentially pushing beyond the borders of this "elite consensus" that has been described. Take health care for example. But as you can see, the resistance to this move has been overwhelming and at present it is not clear if any significant change will be accomplished.

When it comes to our foreign policy, there are differences you bet - but those differences fall within the parameters of acceptability. No one is talking about closing out military bases around the world, or pursuing a different foreign policy focusing on non-intervention and peace - even mere discussion of such ideas is stamped as "loony" - you even do it. It's only loony because of the stranglehold powerful controlling interests have over national political dialog - constraining the parameters of what is and is not acceptable to discuss.

Consequently while we have a different party in power, and thus there are some changes - we still have a massive military budget that is more than the rest of the industrialized nations in the world combined, we will push our military will over the rest of the globe and spread our bases all over the planet. We still engage in policies of destabilization in certain other countries and resist multi-lateral global consensus on issues like detention, torture, and treaties.

Now its fine if you see things differently, but I'm not just throwing around words without thought. You call it "fringe" with basically only makes my point about the narrow range of acceptable political thought in the United States.

[Political Heretic]

20. Common I put a lot of thought into this....

No comments?

[inna]

21. outstanding thread, OP and this post! thank you!

:applause:

[Political Heretic]

22. Thanks! Though I was hoping to hear back from Buzz Click

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Precisely!

Perhaps people who thought it was too big were those who oppose Keynesian economic approaches wholesale (thus opposed all stimulus spending in the first place) and those who thought it was too small were Keynesians who supported the idea of stimulus but argued that the type and size of this stimulus was not nearly enough to do the job.

I, for one, think that the stimulus was both too small and wrongly focused. Instead of bailing out the banks from the consequences of their larcenous mismanagement, we should have put the money--and more--into building a 21st-century infrastructure (green energy, universal high-speed internet access, high-speed rail and the like), funding universal health care, universal higher education, stem-cell research and similar culture-shifting enterprises, etc.

Bail out the victims of the banks, but let the banks themselves die and replace their essential functions with a permanently nationalized system.

[tekisui]

3. knr!~ I was told I was a 20% last night, being that I am

Left of what is seen as "acceptable left". Also, that it would be impossible to satisfy us 20%ers.

[geckosfeet]

4. Stimulus money, was given to the wrong people. Main street should have recieved it.

Until corporate thieves pay their share of taxes, they should NOT be on the short list for handouts.

[RC]

5. The stimulus money was given to the very people that caused the problems in the first place.

And as most of us know large chunks of that money have simply disappeared.

[many a good man]

7. Stimulus money is different than bailout money

Please don't conflate the two. The bailout, which includes TARP, was a sell out to the Masters of the Universe who ruined the economy. The Stimulus bill, though watered down by ineffective tax cuts, is true Keynesian economics.

I support the stimulus (but should've been more) and oppose the bailout (which went to the wrong people).

[geckosfeet]

13. Yes - my error. The bailout money should have been part of a main street stimulus package.

[bonzotex]

8. I always have to laugh when I hear that sort of "logic".

The classic middle-of-the-road must be right fallacy. It is always a retarded false choice.

[slay]

10. WTF is she Goldilocks? This stimulus is too big.. this stimulus is too small.. this stimulus is

JUST RIGHT! Gimmie a fuckin break. All these idiots are just guessing - postponing the inevitable cause they all know the shit has hit the fan, the rich have consolidated their wealth, and the rest of us, well we're gonna have to face it eventually, the rest of us are fucked. There can be no more business as usual - no "stimulus" is gonna save us this time. We need a fundamental re-structuring of our entire financial system, and NOBODY wants to be the one to have to do that.

Good points about how our political left is considered conservative in the rest the world and how we are not even allowed a true left in this country - as wrong as those descriptions may be at times. It's the elite against the rest of us, and they've done a damn good job with the old tried and true - divide and conquer.

[TokenQueer]

11. +2

+1 for content.

+1 for Goldilocks.

:spray:

[geckosfeet]

17. +1

Another plus one for 'too big'.

[Enthusiast]

18. Don't we remember how

the media engaged in a discussion of the first stimulus? Right wing views were given top priority. Advocates of a strong stimulus were insulted and overwhelmed by those opposed to it. Was it four to one? TV hosts were mostly advocates of the RW position. It all comes down to those that control media content. Believe me folks, progressives ain't in control. Any discussion of a new stimulus will be worse.