China's Effect on American Families: Reed About It
I didn’t read Reed’s book (yet), but his initial post does raise some interesting issues – issues that the entire progressive world is grappling with, and must grapple with, as we look toward governing either partially next year or fully two years later.
And while the two that strike me can be categorized as “foreign” and “domestic,” the truth is that the lines have between the two have blurred. As Reed makes clear, the rise of China and the promise of upward mobility for American families are part and parcel of the same issue: global competitiveness.
In the latest issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Ely Ratner and Naazeen Barma don’t discount the argument of Reed and others that China presents an economic threat. What they do argue is that the real challenge posed by China is not material or military, but ideological.
The rise of China presents the West, for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with a formidable ideological challenge to that paradigm. The "China model" powerfully combines two components: illiberal capitalism, the practice and promotion of a governance strategy where markets are free but politics are not; and illiberal sovereignty, an approach to international relations that emphasizes the inviolability of national borders in the face of international intervention. China’s rise, in turn, presents a successful and, in many nations’ eyes, increasingly legitimate model for national development, one that poses a distinct alternative to Western-style democratic liberalism.
A China that is able to ally with other illiberal regimes will have serious repercussions for American security – and the economic security of American families too. (BTW, Naaz and Ely will be presenting their argument at a talk at Berkeley on Thursday).
Reed, in his post and presumably his book, makes the case that: “American workers ought to be supported by reliable public benefits as they create start-up's, move to new jobs in new firms, and intensify their personal commitment to entrepreneurship. They should have very cheap access to college educations, easy credit for starting firms, portable and individualized savings accounts, cheap and universal broadband communications.”
Karen Kornbluh – an occasional contributor to TPMCafe and Barack Obama’s policy director – says that families today need even more. That is, what is needed aren’t piecemeal solutions; what is needed is a total reconfiguring of our social insurance system to meet the needs not of widows from the 1930’s, but of today’s “juggler families.”
Both two-earner and single-parent families operate in a volatile, winner-takes-all economy; families often are expected to raise a younger generation and care for an older one, while saving to prepare for the current one’s future; and workers at all skill levels face a career of increased mobility and volatility.
Contrary to what conservatives have argued, Americans do not need to replace social insurance with some version of the private accounts of President George W. Bush’s Social Security plan. Rather, they need a way to continue sharing the all-too-real risks families bear as parents across the country attempt to raise kids in a new economy that provides them no margin for error. This should be the central goal of our social insurance system in the twenty-first century.
In response, Karen proposes a form of Family Insurance, along with some reforms of the current social insurance system, that would cushion families as they left the job market to take care of a new child or an aging parent – or went back to school to take jobs in industries growing in the global economy.
There are a lot of details that need to be worked in FI, but this is the type of imaginative thinking needed as we asses the new international challenges and figure out the best ways to respond to them at home and abroad.
Dear lord save us form these white men with their clean shirts, neckties and haircuts. They're as dangerous ans piranha, but not quite as smart or creative.
September 25, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to prove that trolls can sniff out wannabe trolls in hiding? Substitute "raghead imans" for "white men with their clean shirts, neckties and haircuts" & you become member "Fred Dobbs." Ever think of keeping your snarky stereotypical insults hidden under your moth-eaten sweater vest or whatever you prefer? Or shall we just make change this website into an insult contest and forget the whole discussion thing?
September 26, 2006 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very insightful point. China's history is one of cycles: union, disunity, union. Its Confucian bureaucracy has been essentially the same for thousands of years. Pluralism has no place in it.
September 26, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a troll? I guess that's why I consistently get so many '4' ratings from so many readers on so many other threads.
Give me a break. The reality is that this is a pretty content free post with no apparent theme except to promote Reed's book. Why should anyone respect that?
Our hero here seems to think that Reed has some novel new insight with the notion that China represents an economic rival and competitor and that it might not be good for America to be consistently beaten.
Well, there's an earthshaking insight, don't you think.
And his particular contribution? Well, that China's society is all nasty and 'cheaty' and 'illiberal.' Sure dude, since... 1949?
And then there's the confusion about 'not having income redistribution' or 'not having a national policy' which seems to be Reed's position, except when its not. A confusion that reappears here.
Now, don't get me wrong. I respect the fact that Reed has written a book. Good on him.
And I respect the fact that it took him three years to write, which may speak well or poorly of him, depending on its content.
I'm perfectly willing to concedede that a book three years in the making must have some worthwhile content.
And I'm glad Reed's friends are supporting and trying to promote his book.
But so far, what has Reed offered up, what has his little Pal put forward, in order to inspire us to buy his book:
1) Observations and trite platitudes fundamentally basic and hackneyed, the work of the obvious and obtuse. "Hey, China's really catching up!"
2) Proscriptions which are incoherent and contradictory and often laced with self serving technocratic ideological baggage.
3) And as a sign of ultimate bankruptcy, a tendency to look forward to the past. 'The internet is the coming thing', 'Energy and Health care are the big waves.'
You sit there and expect me to respect any of this? Give me a break.
As far as I'm concerned, increasingly posts like Reed and his little buddy shows only the bankruptcy and irrelevance of their technocratic and ideological views of the world. Self satisfied, incoherent, out of touch and not particularly brilliant.
You've said that it would be racist if I used the term 'raghead imam'. You're right, it would be. Or if I used 'angry black' or 'disenfranchised latino' or 'asian.'
But guess what, for the most part, none of these have the privileged access of Reed and his class. The reality is that white upper middle class technocrats from good schools, mostly the descendents of other white upper middle class technocrats, have been running your country. The meritocracy in which you believe doesn't really exist, and instead, you get a bill of goods consisting of guys with clean shirts and nice haircuts forming their own little conformists club. For the most part, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims etc., need not apply, unless they're prepared to abandon principles and tow the white boy line.
And most offensively, we're all expected to lower the bar for them. Whatever trite nonsense that comes out of the white boy phalanx, such as the interminable blatherings of a Charles Friedman, are to be considered pearls of wisdom.
Meanwhile, an immense diversity of views is simply ignored as irrelevant.
Sadly, their stewardship turns out to have benefitted no one but themselves. Their inept piloting of American society has taken us all into iceberg lands. And as they begin to realize that the deterioration of American society may indeed come to affect their own cosy little nests, they tentatively contemplate the possibility of joining hands singing 'Kumbaya', carefully edited and revised to conform to their own white boy worldview.
I've got nothing against 'white people'. I'm nominally white myself, though I come from the extreme hinterland and I'm thoroughly working class. I got scars on my hands from manual labour, I got friends who live in trailer parks, and I am nasty, brutish and short, I freely admit it all. All of which means that I am not part of any upper middle class white reality.
The truth is that there are other realities. There are working class realities, and poor realities, there are blacks and hispanic, asian and indian and muslim realities. There's a whole world of viewpoints and insights, some of which are brilliant and wonderful. Most of which we never hear. The range of what we hear, the voices that get listened to, is so terribly narrow, and we are all the poorer for it.
Does this mean I have a problem with Reed and is little buddy? Yes and no.
I don't necessarily blame Reed or someone like him for blogging away, when other, potentially more interesting voices go unheard.
But on the other hand, I do want him to be better. I want him to be smarter, more perceptive, more insightful.
I ask you: Is that too much to ask? Is that unreasonable of me?
If it is, so be it.
But when I read posts from a 'white boy' 'master of the universe', what I want is some sense that they have a clue, that they warrant their somewhat lofty position in our society. I'd like to see a little, or a lot of wisdom, of cleverness, of actually having a clue.
Because simply being an upper middle class, connected, white guy with a nice tie, a clean shirt and a good haircut is just not good enough.
September 26, 2006 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Family Insurance is a terrific idea, except for the fact that we're unlikely to find the money to pay for it. The key is our two indispensable creditors--Japan and China. Japan very much likes and will pay for our global military, and China adores our consumer markets, which they're happy to finance to soak up their manufacturing output (and which, in turn, provides a market in China for Japan's capital goods). But social insurance for Americans would be a non-starter. If we ever began to redirect our spending away from consumer junk and military hardware toward something rational, decent and expensive, like Family Insurance, Japan and China would begin dumping dollar assets, our currency would plunge like a hot rock, the world economy would unravel and, eventually, the most capable nations (ie, the most illiberal and tech savvy--China and Japan) would emerge on top.
.
Welcome to the desert of the real.
September 26, 2006 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Baer repeatedly flogs right wing causes in the TPM Cafe and I don't know why Josh Marshall gives him any consideration.
In one post, Ken Baer made a big deal out of a supposed Iranian cartoon heralded by MEMRI as an example of Iran's promotion of terrorism.
I did a post about Ralph Reed's financial connection to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and the IFCJ's "Stand Up For Israel" campaign. Once again, Ralph Reed appears to be linked to a shady Republican operation.
The same years in which Ralph Reed's firm, Century Strategies, was paid more than $750k, the IFCJ paid $10 million to an unregistered ad agency owned by E. Paul Bigham, an extreme right winger.
Ralph Reed lied to his fellow Evangelical Christians about his association with gambling.
Ralph Reed is a crook who is tied into Jack Abramoff's operations.
I'd like Ken Baer to tell us why he would bother to read anything written by Ralph Reed other than a confession and why he thinks Ralph Reed has integrity as an author or as a human being.
What would anyone, especially a supposed Democrat like Ken Baer, try to give crediblity to Ralph Reed about anything?
Perhaps Ken Baer should disclose his client list.
September 26, 2006 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is instead of insisting countries like China adhere to standards we have in the west we try to deal with them on their illiberal terms. So in a sense we are validating what China does (poor record on human rights, environmental issues, worker's rights, etc.) by dealing with them without insisting they start to modify their behavior. And that validation will lead to others following China's lead. It isn't China and their ideology which presents a danger it is us ignoring their ideology in the quest for the "free market" grail. And in a sense we are becoming more like them (especially in terms of "exploiting" our workers) than they are modifying their behavior to be more like us...
Is the FI proposal raising the white flag in surrender and admitting we have to play by their (China's) rules? And therefore we will need to have government assistance for our workers so our corporations can compete (aka "Corporate welfare")?
September 26, 2006 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I once read somewhere that American workers could have their wages reduced to zero, and that it wouldn't make a difference. Chinese goods would still be cheaper due to advantages in infrastructure costs, raw materials, corporate and executive overhead and economies of scale.
Frankly, America has played on the world economy with some serious built in advantages - a large diverse territory that provided bountiful natural resources, and a large economy which provided abundant economies of scale... particularly when competing with much smaller economies and territories in Europe, Asia and Japan. I don't believe that Americans ever considered these competitive advantages as anything more or less than their due, when calling for a level playing field.
However, the reality is that the inbuilt advantage of 'economy' of scale for America is fading fast. Europe has a wealthy population significantly greater than America. India and China have colossal populations which dwarf America's. Even 'also rans' like Japan, Russia and Brazil sport populations which may be competitive. Which means that the playing field really is much closer to being level now, than its ever been in the past.
The American response has, 'other great advantage.' However, to do so, it must go beyond its own borders and narrow its perspectives in a quest to secure control of key resources. Hence the campaign to 'own' Iraq and the Persian Gulf. I don't think that this is going to work, and I don't think that the pursuit of control over extranational will do more than create conflict.
Meanwhile, the fetishistic glorification of 'free trade' at all costs, ignores other factors which distort the 'level playing field.' This includes cheap, ultra-cheap and slave labour, environmental pollution, lack of critical public regulation etc. on the one side, and inbuilt advantages of wealth and power on the other side.
The realities are that there is no such thing as a level playing field, only various sorts of inequalities, and the enforcement through 'free trade' of institutionalizing or enhancing certain kinds of inequalities has not been good for a great many people... whether they are Americans watching their jobs being exported, Chinese in slave labour factories, Mexicans in Chiapas having their lands stolen, Haitians pushed to the brink of starvation etc.
It may be time to acknowledge that the concept of 'free trade' has always been bankrupt and dangerous. Perhaps there's an opportunity, once we do this, to start thinking about more equitable solutions.
As for getting China to change its 'illiberal' ways... Good luck with that. The reality is that China with its massive population, large territorial scope, and access to other markets may be beyond the capacity of the United States to influence in any way. Indeed the situation seems to be on the verge of reversing, and it is China which is increasingly in a position to challenge American ways.
If this is the case, then we need new thinking and new approaches, and not the failed and failing nostrums of corporate ideologues, wacky libertarians and free marketeers.
September 26, 2006 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made some very good points Valdron.
For me the biggest mistake the US is making is trying to prop up their failing corporations with government subsidies and "corporate welfare". The aid the US government is giving our corporations isn't helping those corporations be more competitive in the global stage. It is only masking the problems and causing other problems to arise.
The heart of the problem is the undue influence US corporations have in Washington with the hundreds of millions of dollars they lavish on US lawmakers. Corporations are capitalist enterprises and aren't the slightest concerned with the public or national good. The main (and probably only) focus is to make a profit for them and their shareholders. They will create jobs if it is profitable to do so and they will eliminate jobs just as often for the same ends. I don't begrudge any company that strives for profitability. But when our government puts policies in place to help corporations remain profitable while putting our economy and society in a disadvantageous position then it becomes counterproductive. Our lawmakers need to make policy that will enrich our country first and our corporations second. But to get there the way our government currently operates must be radically changed...
September 26, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, to play the devil's advocate, other countries - Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan practice various forms of 'corporate welfare' subsidizing and promoting corporations.
In those cases, however, generally there's an approach that the Government is entitled to get something for its money. That these corporations participate in national and industrial strategies, that they advance national goals, provide employment, etc.
The difference in the United States model is that there's a sort of arms length between corporations and the government. Or perhaps a simplification of the relationship.
The government gives money, corporations take it, and that's the end of the story. There's no broader concept of a national strategy, no responsibility, no accountability.
Your government is simply a political hostage to various corporate interests who loot it, and who come, parasitically, to depend on government largesse to greater or lesser extents.
It seems to come into two forms. The Military Industrial complex and its offspring, including Halliburton and a bevy of firms that seek to privatize and provide government services... sucking at the public teat, on lucrative cost plus, accountability free contracts.
Or simple harvesters who see government as a lovely source of revenue, directly, through tax breaks, subsidies, transfer of public resources of various sorts, etc., or indirectly through manipulation of regulatory or trade frameworks to benefit themselves.
Who stands for America? Not the corporations, who legally, are obligated to be nothing more or less than sociopaths, beholden only to the obligations which legally bind them... and apparently not the government which is controlled by them.
It strikes me, in terms of this perspective, that the real failure of Reed's thesis (not that I've read the book) (and not that I'm going to read it, the way things are going), is that he simply does not address the massive structural corruption of the American polity.
I dunno, that's just my two cents, for what it's worth.
September 26, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a troll, when you name-call instead of serious response. Period.
September 27, 2006 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
" Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims etc., need not apply, unless they're prepared to abandon principles and tow the white boy line."
What you really mean is that John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleezza Rice, Harriet Miers are all white boys, because they don't agree with you.
Give it up. The "ruling class" in the US today is the most diverse the world has known and is rapidly becoming more so (albeit we have a long way to go).
September 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
>Trying to prove that trolls can sniff out wannabe trolls in hiding?
This is both stupid and meaningless, and as one of the better commenters on this site you should know better. Valdron isn't a troll. He's not "sniffing out wannabe trolls". He's pointing out that Reed and Kenneth, like an alarmingly large number of talking heads on this site and elsewhere, are frankly full of it, repeatedly spouting vacuous trusims and ivy-tower bilge, and yet receive a lot more attention than they would if they hadn't been to private school/Harvard/written for the Crimson/been a Clinton functionary etc.
September 27, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he could have done it like you did rather than making it a simplistic racist insult. He's already been feeding a conservative troll here recently, now all of sudden he starts using his tactics, too. I've never downrated anything by Valdron in the past, but I found this comment very offensive. In part it seemed clearly meant to personally hurt the contributor. Stuff like that can turn a forum bad real quick--insults rather than discussion. It's true he usually discusses. This time he was a troll. Constant flippant personal insults, to contributors in particular, are a surefire way to ruin a forum. They should be condemned whenever they occur. I stand by my rating of that comment.
September 27, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I see your point.
September 27, 2006 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron: Coming to a website to dismissively insult a contributor rather than posting honest disagreement is trolling. You did it in that comment, therefore, it is worthy of troll-rating.
If I were Josh Marshall, trying to cajole "names" to contribute to TPM Cafe Book Club posts, I would ask you to apologize to Mr. Baer, to treat my contributors with a little more simple respect in the future, or to go seek a website where the content is more of your liking. You basically say yourself in this new comment that he is not worthy of respect. If that is so, why not start your own website with people you respect rather than practicing trolling? You are now basically insulting Josh Marshall's editorial choices--he read this essay and decided to publish it.
September 27, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs panstreppon: Ever think of trying to address Mr. Baer in the first person on his own thread, rather than making acccusations about him in the third person? You're basically trolling, too, by doing that. In the end, I suspect you & Valdron probably have succeeded in making sure Mr. Baer never posts here again: trolling wins, website loses.
September 27, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on Artappraiser. First things first, you've downrated me in the past, obviously because I don't share your particular ideological bent. I don't particularly have a problem with that. All's fair in love and war, I don't lose sleep over it, but don't lie about it. Look, I don't really care. You go ahead, lie about whatever you want. But frankly, your integrity ought to be worth something to you, so I'd advise you that if you feel a need to lie, save it for something important. Troll rate me all you want, but don't lie about it. This is trivial and it demeans you.
Second, there will be no apology. I don't care about 'names', and frankly, the pontifications of the flavour of the month from the latest circle jerk think tank. Frankly, I don't think many people frequent this site for the latest from Reed Hundt or Stirling Newberry or M.J. Abramowitz. No offense to these worthies, but that's how it is. What people want is intelligent, articulate comment that helps them to understand the world a little bit better. That's not about a 'name' that's about the content. If some people consistently provide worthy content, then they'll get a following. But the name follows the content, not the other way around.
Frankly, I find that your post speaks to an exagerated sense of entitlement that I feel is sloppy. Perhaps your world is all about entitlement and privilege and the fact that some people count more because of who they are or what school they went to... but sorry, these things are a poor or indifferent predictor of merit.
If Josh is looking for names, then I think he's making a mistake. If he is looking for content, then good on him. I'll make my own views as to the quality of that content. I don't attribute the views of commenters or content to Josh, I think that would be both a mistake and an insult to Josh, and by and large I respect Josh for his effort.
I don't insult Josh Marshall's editorial choices. I insult valueless content. This is one of four, count them - four, threads devoted to promoting Reed and his book. How many threads did Somalia get this week? Or Darfur? Or the credit squeeze on the average working class American.
Now, Reed's got a book. Good for him. Reed's trying to promote it. Good for him again. Reed's friends are chipping in. Excellent. A bit of naked self promotion never hurt anyone, who knows, maybe we'll eagerly await the merchandising.
With all that effort, I've yet to see a reason to buy it. I've yet to see anything that isn't empty cliches and buzzword salad. Look, I'm not unreasonable here. I love books. I love to read. Someone wants to sell me a book, I'm halfway there. But only halfway. For all the push, there's a decided lack of substance.
Four posts of buzzword salad. Jesus Christ, is the book like that. If it is, then its a waste of time isn't it... something worthy of Regnery Press.
Further, I'm reserving the right to dismiss in brief, posts which I find to be particularly irrelevant and empty of content. Someone pens a screed that they obviously didn't spend five minutes thinking about and couldn't be bothered to engage minimal coherence... and why should I be obliged to tender a formal effort to explain why its empty and valueless. I reserve the right to say "wow, this is without value" in whatever fashion I choose to say.
And, wonderfully, you have the right to troll rate it. So you see, everyone wins.
In terms of dealing with trolls, its a big world and there are a variety of options for dealing with them. My approach is combative, and I go out of my way to make trolling an unpleasant experience for the troll. I find they go away. It's a valid approach. Your approach is whatever your approach is, maybe its better, maybe its worse, but I don't presume to judge you.
The fact that you don't particularly like my style of writing, or the content of my posts, is your choice. You're free to make it. Good for you. But I don't care very much.
Frankly, I find myself in disagreement with a lot of the positions you take, and with your often less than courteous approach to people. But that's your right.
I'll happily debate you, but I'm not going to tell you how you should debate. I would frankly expect the same courtesy from you. But whether you grant it or not changes nothing.
Now, I appreciate that I've taken a harsh tone with you. I'm sorry, but I want to be clear. You can accept the apology for the tone, as you wish, but my points remain.
September 27, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I wouldn't include John Yoo as an 'honorary white boy.' He fits into the category of raving lunatic with fascistic impulses, if you want my opinion.
I'll not comment on Harriet Miers. I have no particular opinion on her, save only that she was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. But that's hardly a condemnation of her as a person or a practitioner of law.
As for a Condoleeza Rice, or a Colin Powell, yeah. I'll make that comment. Log Cabin Republicans? Sure. Hey, if you are full of admiration for the caree of Condoleeza Rice and her brilliant performance, all you have to do is look at the hole where the twin towers used to be, or the disaster that is Iraq, or her recent extraordinary 'give war a chance' performance during the Lebanon conflict.
As for Colin Powell, yeah, that guy was a winner. He spent the civil rights era helping to cover up My Lai. He just about revolted against Clinton over gays in the military. But somehow his integrity was nowhere to be found when it came to telling the UN a pack of obvious lies about Iraq's wmd. There's a life spent making no waves and toeing the line.
It's not about the fact that they have legitimate differences of opinion. The fact is that they have no differences of opinion from the ruling class. They're part and parcel of the consensus of the elite, and they're admitted to the elite because they adopt that consensus.
Y'know, up here we had something colled "Le Roi Negre", translated bluntly it comes out as "Nigger Kings." It was a term applied to a succession of very white French Premiers of Quebec who did the bidding of the English elite of the Province.
It is one of the oldest techniques of a ruling class to admit members of minorities and to annoint those members as leaders or representatives of minorities... not to represent those minorities concerns or issues, but to defuse or eliminate those concerns or issues, to represent and speak the views of the elite and keep the natives pacified. Tokenism is well established.
Yeah right. That's why your President is the son of a previous President, who was the son of a Senator, and whose family is somehow related to the British Royal family. That's why one of your Senators is the wife of a former President, and another Senator is the wife of a former Presidential candidate, and the Senator from Alaska is the daughter of a Governor from Alaska. That's why a former Presidential Candidate and Vice President and Senator is the son of a Senator.
That's why another Senator is the brother of a deceaed President.
That's why, after decades of creative gerrymandering, 90% of incumbents are re-elected automatically. That's why the top 10% of the population controls what... 50%? 70% of the wealth in the country? And the top 1% controls most of that?
What about the fact that people couldn't tell Al Gore and George W. Bush apart, ideologically, during the 2000 election? What about the fact that Kerry couldn't meaningfully distinguish himself from Bush in the 2004 election... for Christ's sakes, how hard could that have been? What about the fact that the Democrats have basically rolled over for every significant Republican initiative.
You put up a few tokens and you call that diversity? Hell no. Real diversity isn't getting a few tokens to parrot the official elite consensus. Real diversity is when genuine differences are aired and discussed, when consensus is challenged and examined.
Real issues face America, and all you get is a dog and pony show. Jesus Christ, look at Iraq. Frikking nightmare there, but the Republicans pretend nothing is wrong and the Democrats struggle not to have a position. Everyone purses their lips and tries to look serious and concerned, meanwhile over there mass graves are filling up.
About tokens: The fact that a man is black or asian doesn't mean that he has to toe some black or asian line. Everyone has the right to be their own person, to make their own way. People are entitled to stand for what they believe in. But people like Powell or Rice aren't like that, they traded on their race to betray their race. It's not a new story, its as old as the hills, its not terribly interesting and it isn't even controversial.
September 27, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: What about the fact that people couldn't tell Al Gore and George W. Bush apart, ideologically, during the 2000 election?
Anyone who couldn't see very clear differences between Gore and Bush in Y2K (for all that Bush did his best to hide his real attitudes and plans) was absolutely butt dumb, or at the very least paying no attention.
September 28, 2006 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true, Bush did his level best to conceal his real attitudes and plans, didn't admit to having them, played right to the moderate center.
He battled Al Gore to a standstill for the exact same ideological ground that Gore was trying for.
I remember vividly watching the debate between them, and being appalled how their substantive points of difference came down to the minutae of slightly different prescription drug plans. They were that close.
There positions were all but interchangeable, of interest and distinction only to policy wonks.
They both presented themselves as intrinsicly conservative and incrementalist, centre-right, moderate politicians.
There was so little substantive distinction between them that the media invented irrelevant narratives. Gore was the stiffy, wooden, a serial fibber, not quite on with the truth, the smart cold guy. Bush was the warm likeable guy, maybe not as smart, maybe a touch inept with the language, but decent to the core.
The point was that the two men occupied the same ideological ground, and there wasn't anything real to distinguish them except high wonkery and personal style.
That's why Ralph Nader could claim that there wasn't any fundamental difference between them and vacuum up 5% of Gore's vote. If Gore could have persuaded them that his values and positions were at least complementary to theirs, or if he could have persuaded them that Bush was a rabid reactionary... well, he would have won, hands down, he would have taken enough Nader voters back. But he didn't.
Of course, Gore really was a conservative incrementalist, centre-right, moderate politician, and had years of proof of that, going back to his Senate career and his wife Tipper's assaults on the first amendment. He was everything he claimed to be.
Bush, as the years have proven, was a raging loony toons radical, a bug eating ideological madman bent on violence and revolution. So he lied through his teeth about what he was.
But the thing was, he presented himself as just the same as Gore. He fought on Gore's ideological ground. And certainly the media and most of the public took that at face value. Maybe some of the more insane radical right wing fundies got their hopes up from winks and handshakes. But winking at the fundies is a long Republican tradition, and no one had ever taken them to bed before.
September 28, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink