Progressives: Stop Being Petty and Polemical

Tags

advice, America, American politics, argument, arms race, barack obama, Citizens United, Citizens United decision, climate change, communication, communism, congress, conservative, conservatives, culture war, culture wars, debate, decision, decisions, discussion, division, divisiveness, egalitarian, egalitarianism, email, equality, fairness, frank luntz, freedom, freedoms, fundraising, Gilded Age, gun, guns, historical, history, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby decision, idea, ideas, ideological, ideology, immigration, inalienable rights, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, law, laws, lawsuit, lawsuits, legislation, liberal, liberals, liberties, liberty, message, messaging, obama, political, political advice, political advice for progressives, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, prisoner's dilemma, progress, progressive, Progressives, progressivism, rhetoric, rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, talking points, Tea Party, tone, U.S., U.S. politics, united states, United States of America, unity, US, US politics, zero sum, zero-sum game

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

Cognitive Dissonance: Conservatives and Government

Tags

allure, allure of government, America, American government, anarchist, anarchists, anarchy, atheism, atheist, atheists, Ayn Rand, Bible, campaigns, Capitol Hill, cognitive dissonance, communism, communitarianism, congress, conservatism, conservative, conservatives, D.C., DC, demographics, demography, diversity, E.P.A., elections, entitlement programs, entitlements, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equality, federal government, food stamps, freedom, gay marriage, governing, government, Grover Norquist, gun control, guns, health, health care, healthcare, Henry David Thoreau, hypocrisy, ideology, Kryptonite, laws, Leviathan, libertarian, libertarianism, libertarians, limited government, local government, marriage equality, media, National Parks, Norquist, On Walden Pond, politics, power, Rand, religion, reproductive rights, S.N.A.P., safety, same sex marriage, secular, secularism, secularist, secularists, security, self reliance, small government, smaller government, SNAP, social security, socialism, society, stability, state, state government, states, taxes, Thoreau, U.S., U.S. Government, united states, United States Government, US, US Government, Walden, Walden Pond, Washington, Washington D.C., Washington DC, white house, women's rights

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

In Defense of Mitt Romney (Sort of)

Tags

2012, America, american economy, americans, barack obama, campaign, Cenk Uygur, cnn, comments, comments made, conservative, conservatives, democrat, democrats, economics, economy, Election, future, inequality, liberal, liberals, media, middle class, mitt romney, money, obama, politics, poor, president, president obama, primary, prosperity, republican, republicans, romney, talking points, very poor, wealth, wealth inequality

To say that Mitt Romney is getting a lot of flak for a comment he made yesterday concerning the “very poor” is an understatement. Liberals have seized on this statement as the latest in a series of ever-worsening gaffes, gleeful that Romney is doing all the work for them as he paints himself as the “out of touch multimillionaire” and an unelectable candidate against President Obama during a time when public opinion is against America’s Rich Uncle Pennybagses. (At least Mr. Pennybags made his money buying properties. There is no mention of laying off workers, and I’m sure even he would scoff at a 13.9% tax rate.) Even conservatives have jumped ship on this comment, embarrassed that their candidate of choice has fumbled so definitively. After being given multiple opportunities to clarify his statement, he didn’t backpedal. This is the new Mitt Romney, flip flopper characterizations be damned!

I’d like to say a bit in Mitt Romney’s defense. This may come off more as an offense against the media than a defense of Romney, but I do feel like he’s getting unfairly beaten up over this statement, as well as some others made regarding interpretations of his wealth. If we are to criticize the candidate on anything he said, it shouldn’t be the fact that he said “I don’t care about the very poor” (or “the very rich”, as he qualified) or the fact that he said “We will hear about the plight of the poor from the Democrat Party”. (The fact that the perfectly polished Romney said Democrat, not Democratic, is probably a sign that he was tired and stressed, and maybe we should realize that no candidate is actually perfect.)

To be sure, Romney’s statement was meant to emphasize his apparent commitment to the middle class in America. (This particular pandering might not actually be sincere, but for the sake of argument, let’s take Romney at his word.) This focus on the middle class is a popular stance for a presidential candidate to make, and is, in fact, the same one that President Obama has been making since 2007. While Obama’s policies—both in theory and in execution have done much more for America’s poor than any of the Republican candidates have ever pledged to do—Obama is still a mainly middle class-focused president. And why not? The middle class is how you win elections. It is politically expedient to aim your rhetoric toward those who believe in social mobility and who largely see themselves as having the desire and the ability to improve their station in life. One of the most enduring tenets of history is that revolutions are made by the middle class, not sustained by the peasantry or the lower classes. I’ve taken a lot of history classes; take that, Newt Gingrich! Basically, while the middle class is undeniably shrinking, it still consists of the majority of Americans and remains the largest voting bloc of the electorate. By all economic estimates, a thriving middle class is necessary to restore the country’s economy.

So there’s nothing wrong with speaking to the needs of the middle class. I think the issue at hand is that people are disturbed by Romney’s stated focus on the middle class seemingly at the exclusion—or to the detriment of—the “very poor”. He said that those who fall into this category have a social safety net, and if the safety net has holes in it, he will work to fix them. On its face, there is nothing wrong with this statement either. The real problem comes when one reads into this statement in context. Romney claimed that his statement was taken out of context. If you listen to all he says, and consider that the context, you are not really understanding the full scope. Republicans—Romney included—have made it their unequivocally stated goal to cut social programs for the poor and remove or tremendously weaken the social safety net, claiming that the United States government has bred an “entitlement society”. The kind of Ayn Rand, individualistic, I don’t give a shit about other people and I don’t live in a society where I’ve actually ever relied on anyone and I ignore the fact that there is undeniable historical evidence that cooperation equals prosperity, thinking is further qualified by the idea that “with the mounting debt, we can’t afford to spend this kind of money”. Translated into simple English without the spin, the Republican candidates are willing to kill poor people and doom them to suffering. Maybe that sounds like fear mongering, but it’s absolutely true.

Problem number one: Mitt Romney is disingenuous when he claims that he will fix the social safety net. Also, how about trying to help people out of poverty? Romney cares much more about his corporate donors and bigwig buddies than the poor. No one should be fooling themselves. But we knew all this before this statement, so the gasps and outrage are surprising. Suddenly everyone realizes?

Problem number two: Romney stated that 90-95% of American people are middle class. He had stated on a previous occasion that 80-90% of people are middle class. Neither of these figures is correct. This is why people get upset when Romney includes himself in these figures and when he jokes that he, too, is unemployed. Romney seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what middle class means. Taking this further, if he truly sees himself as middle class, then he has no idea how the vast majority of the country’s population lives. Those figures should have been the real focus of criticism, not the semi-tactless statements he made.

Problem number three: Liberals are hurt that Romney likened the poverty issue to a Democratic issue. While the “plight of the poor” should definitely not be a partisan issue, this is not the point. Hearing Cenk Uygur rail on about how he, as a Democrat, shouldn’t be marginalized and “this guy” (Romney) is ridiculous just makes him—and other media representatives like him—seem self absorbed and immature.

Who doesn’t love a talking point? The media has survived on them since at least last May, when the Republican candidates started taking the 2012 presidential race seriously. The problem with this is that the focus becomes things like Romney’s $10,000 bet moment, not actual analysis of any of the candidates’ policy proposals. I personally don’t think the $10,000 bet was that big of a deal. We know Romney’s rich. We know he wouldn’t actually bet. He’s said plenty of other incendiary things that actually have potential for application, things that would hurt the poor—and anyone who couldn’t afford a $10,000 bet—far more than that debate moment. I get it, though: All of these moments are heuristics used to judge a candidate’s “character”, and we should know who we’re voting for. How about we don’t hound Romney relentlessly for every slightly awkward statement he makes, and instead, hold him—as well as every other candidate—to account for their actual positions and demand concrete plans from our potential leaders? Then, feel free to tear them apart. At least that would be productive.