A Failure To Communicate
The measure of success they have achieved has only become readily apparent in the last few years. We find ourselves on the precipice of catastrophe after financial collapse, thousands having been killed, a city lying in ruins. (These things have been a long time coming and there's plenty of blame to go around [3]).
And yet it didn't take just a bad administration or poor policy decisions for people to notice the issues. The populace didn't notice until the point at which we can now argue about how far off the cliff we are.
And it is still not entirely clear that the population at large understands why they find themselves at this point.
The Republican party has waged a successful war to equate taxation with moral evil, to equate liberals with dictators, fairness with interference, and tyranny with order.
In the last election, Republicans accused the middle classes of irresponsibly voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the upper classes.
But in order to get elected, this is precisely the path Republicans have traveled. They have promised low taxes, easy riches, and no regulation to the upper classes, all the while telling people that this was compatible with the continuation of America as we have known it. Not only that, but they have convinced many in the middle class that these actions are beneficial to them and that they are just an asset bubble away from joining the ranks of the ultra-rich.
They have essentially waged war on America's historic values.
It is easy to see how one might be misled. As a kid my family often took long car trips across the country on the Interstates. As far as i could understand, the Interstate system had always been there. And as far as i could tell it would always be there. It was after all built out of earth, gravel, and concrete.
But it turns out the Interstate system did not magically appear, and will not last indefinitely after having been built. It was a substantial investment made to foster defense and commerce. Even if one never sets tire on an Interstate, one benefits from it whenever buying practically any good or using any service. [1]
The fact that most of the Interstates are not toll roads has insulated the direct costs from us. That they have existed for all if not the majority of many's lifetime has insulated us from the fact that it had not always been this way.
I would assert that this has been happening to a larger extent over a greater period of time with regards to our way of life. Our country and indeed our civilization is not the result of our generation, nor the previous generation. It is the sum of 200 plus years of work, and another 1000 or more years even before that to lay the ground work of ideas of rights and civil justice.
In short, like so many things, we have taken our civilization for granted. We may pay lip service to our founding on the Fourth of July, but it seems like people understand our civilization as having been created out of whole-cloth after WWII.
So where we find ourselves now is at the end of a historic aberration and at the beginning of the consequences of that aberration.
To combat this i would propose another branding campaign. Not one that says that the Democrat Party is the source of all good, and the Republik Party is the source of all evil. But one that promotes a little historic understanding:
-
That Liberal Democracy ensures a government which is limited,
that guarantees rights of speech and assembly. That private property
and individual freedoms are rights derived from liberalism. That
those liberals, the Founding Fathers set up our liberal
government. That liberalism ensures that we can worship (or
not) as we please.
Again we are not trying to say Democrats are the embodiment of these things or that all good things issue from there. What we should attempt to do is underline the fact liberalism brought us our way of life and that it is a superlative of excellence and not an insult.
That we should recognize we are all liberals and we should use the term with respect to the benefits we derive from it.
- That labor unions have brought us many things which we take for granted, like having a fighting chance of not dying at work, getting vacations, working hard for 5 days a week (and not 7), for working hard for 8 hours a day and not 15. (I'm talking to you all you fat cat lazy, commie bums who only work 8 hours 5 days a week).
- That feminism is why women can vote, own land, and enter into contracts. It's why they can go on TV and talk about the evils of feminism instead of being told to go home and find themselves a man.
- That taxes are what funded the construction of our nation. That taxes today are historically low. That civilization costs money and does not happen by itself. (If it did, then you could maybe justify saying taxes were immoral). That taxes have ensured the progress of our society through research, oversight, law enforcement, and many other things it funds[4].
- That intellectualism is what made possible better health, longer life, the Internet, transportation, radio, TV, phones, ....
- etc, etc, etc.
The problem is that they have based their entire political fortune on demonizing them. And while it wins them elections, it is having the unintended(!?) consequence of making people hate the very foundations of our civilization.[2]
[1] Leaving aside comparisons to railroads, and negative effects like
pollution, etc.
[2] Not unlike the unintended consequences of demonizing people and groups of
people leading to violence.
[3] Again to underline: i'm not saying these things were Republican's
fault or that a Democratic administration would have prevented them.
I'm saying that even after these quite extraordinary events, people
are only now beginning to ask questions about their government's (and
its policies) effectiveness.
[4] I still hate paying them.
















BRAVO! I love an elegant piece of writing and I just read one.
July 29, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
well at least give us a link to it or something! :D
(thanks).
July 29, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say in your footnote that there's plenty of blame to go around, yet the tone of the body of the post is that it's mainly the Republicans fault.
I think the problem with politics right now is that the left-wingers like you and the right-wingers are still just out to kill each other. You view it as a war that someone has to win. While that's the case we won't get anything done.
Your points on labor unions, taxes, etc. are nonsensical and are so high level it's hard to respond.
Stop worrying so much about labels and try to focus on the issues.
July 30, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reading.
The footnote addresses just the events to which i was alluding, while the body addresses my main concern: the effect of Conservatives'/Republicans' social and campaign rhetoric on Americans' feelings about history and a few concepts in particular.
re: problem of politics, i agree.
re: my points about unions/taxes/etc, i agree they are high level and difficult to respond to. I was trying to keep it short; unfortunately, i sacrificed clarity (while still failing at the short part).
The point i hoped to make was that the historical significance (ie benefits) of each of the terms has been lost amongst spin doctors' attempts to characterize them as negatives.
re: labels vs issues, i agree.
None of you know me personally, so you'll have to take it on faith (or not), when i say that i abhor spin-doctoring, promoting appearances over substance, rhetorical shenanigans, and other
practices that distract or misrepresent the true state of things. The genesis of the essay is that the rhetoric that has been used (especially amongst the usual talk radio folks), has begun to obscure some important facts about the complexity of our history.
I am not worried about labels, per se, and i prefer to focus on issues. I am worried about the labels' effects on our ability to understand our history though.
Finally, i don't care who wins, parties come and go; they switch sides, and ebb and flow. I agree with Washington in his farewell address concerning the issues with political parties.
My main concern is that the populace understands history and how we came to be, but the Atwater legacy has begun to bite us in the ass as a society. My proposal then was to emphasize the positive aspects of the oft-maligned phrases.
July 30, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Bill is saying is that democratic party "leaders" have been as guilty of the following problem as the republican party "leadership" has been.
This is a staple of partisan politics as it is practiced on the left and right yet the premise of this blog, absent the single footnote, places the blame for this paradigm on almost squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Big "R" republicans, too, which makes it hard to understand which republicans you are talking about.Further, though I am in total agreement with how the GOP has been successful these last 40 years, why should democrats be absolved of traipsing along for the ride? Why shouldn't they be held accountable for failing to articulate a progressive vision for America that would lead to roll call votes as compelling as the one for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
We have a leadership vacuum in this country on both sides of the equation.
The republican party's many failings are self-evident and you listed them well, but where is the list of democratic party failures over the same period? Why not blame them for taking many imminently sensible ideas and failing to craft solutions that would inspire the grassroots of the GOP to demand better of their reps? Why should we applaud the same old solutions that were barely affordable when we first started contemplating them in the 1960s?
They had all the good ideas and didn't offer a single solution in the last 40 or 50 years that a majority of Americans forced their representatives to support. Had the democratic leadership been better able to manage the process of crafting solutions that an essentially bi-polar nation would understand and want then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We'd be talking about funding for the new moon base and General Dynamics new Titan mining colony expansion.
July 30, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, i guess i assumed the issues with the Democratic party would be known (as you did with the Republicans), and i wanted to focus on this particular issue.
I agree 100% Democratic leadership and politicians have misrepresented, dissembled, and lied. They are politician.
Here's some more problems:
1. Democrats are spineless and often cannot even articulate their core principles (if they have any)
2. They are corporatist: they take care of their friends regardless of their stated ideology
3. They engage in partisan food fights at the country's expense
4. They are corrupt e.g. the various scandals in the 80's and 90's in congress.
5. They are so afraid of being labeled soft-on-X that they seem to vote out of fear rather than principle.
6. They have dismissed large swaths of our citizenry as 'backwards', or 'dumb hicks'
7. They have used minorities as a prop.
8. They have done more than a fair share of demagoguary.
9. They have repeatedly double-crossed their constituents (both right and left).
10. They have misrepresented their views.
11. They are politicians (and here i am guilty of my own demonization of the word 'politicians').
12. etc, etc, etc.
The point of the post was not how politicians have strolled us into the abyss for their own short-term gain, but how specific rhetorical
techniques have impacted Americans' feelings about important concepts, like intellectualism, taxes, unions, etc.
July 30, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you seem to blame those techniques as having been wholly the responsibility of one party over the other, when there is a history of responsibility on both sides as well as illogical and barbarous behavior. Not to mention on the part of the average citizen on both sides as well.
No one political party has a monopoly on the progress America has made or the atrocities we endorsed.
Provoking partisan responses through the selective criticism of one side over the other will only continue the acrimony on both sides. Even as republicans must enforce common sense on the GOP, democrats must do the same with the sublime idiots in their caucus. One of those ways is to discontinue the trench warfare in an effort to get republican support for some very worthy progressive concepts that could have broad support with a little creativity.
I would even be happy to consult with Dr. Dean or the president if he decided to give me a call. I could sell progressive ideas all day long to conservatives and liberals alike.
I guess my main point is simply that democrats lose nothing by stopping the blame game to focus on solutions instead. Talk about how specific policies led to specific weaknesses in the system. Once their is an agreement on what the problem is, then perhaps the democratic party would have a solution that fits into a mutually recognized need for reform. We have united for good and for evil, but neither seems possible within the context of the current political debate.
All I see is continuing mediocrity, which continues to be deadly.
July 30, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that no party holds monopoly on the faults and the progress of America.
This post is mainly about rhetoric. So while i understand and agree with your desire to move past it into actually solving political problems that isn't my purpose in this post (that sounds pretty disingenuous, but bear with me).
My purpose is to talk about what i see as a social problem arising out of political rhetoric. It is about making sure things like rational empiricism and intellectualism don't get lost in the food fight that occurs as a matter of course in our political reality.
Do you think it would have been better if i had just left out the introduction and not alluded to parties? (I think it could be helpful in some ways).
Both Democrats and Republicans support Liberal policies. That is to say, they both consider individual liberty and equality to be primary goals as opposed to fascism or monarchies. Both support rational empiricism in science and technology. But at certain times, in certain venues, Liberalism and intellectualism are derided. (On the opposite side, i see the derision of the social importance of religious faith).
Clearly citizens need a better understanding of history and civics, as well as, how our country actually works as opposed to how it ideally should work. They need to understand how to use statistics (and how they are misused), and they need a basic understanding of science. They need to read what was actually written by Washington, the Framers, and the philosophers they based their views on.
Politicians should be the standard-bearers engaging in policy debates in terms of empirical
findings. (Clearly this is something the Democratic party fails at).
July 30, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree that our dysfunctional politics have led to dysfunctional citizen engagement and an unwillingness to talk solutions first and ideology second.
The rest of our differences?
I suspect they mostly come down to semantics, though with the underlying them of the blog itself, I would suggest that semantics are more important now than ever before lest we stay divided at the grassroots and lose before we ever begin.
July 30, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your effort to understand my post and your forbearance for my explanations.
thanks for reading.
July 30, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. Thanks for working though any misguided words on my part to get to the kernel of my ideas with regards to your underlying thesis.
July 30, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of curiosity: do you agree that
1. the labor movement/unions have brought us significant improvements in the workplace
2. taxes are necessary and important, but high taxes can be counter-productive
again thanks for you comment.
July 30, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Labor unions brought productive changes decades ago but today shouldn't be a focus of politicians. I work in a non-union environment and have no desire to be represented by a union.
As for taxes, I believe in fair taxes. But I have major problems with Obama's rhetoric about no new taxes unless you make over $250,000. You will be penalized if you work for a small company that can't afford healthcare. They'll get penalized and it will affect you. You'll also get penalized by cap-and-trade if you earn less than $250,000. Finally, just burdening the top earners will be a failed strategy ultimately. I think the top 25% (or even the top 50%) of earners keep shouldering a % of total taxes that's much larger than the % of the nation's income they generate.
Taxes are necessary, but so is prudent spending. And Obama's $1 trillion average annual deficits going forward are irresponsible
July 30, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
fair enough.
Do you take issue with progressive taxation in general, or just the current levels?
July 30, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a flat tax is the fairest approach. I don't believe I receive any greater benefit from the highways, police, fire, etc. than someone who's in a lower tax bracket.
July 30, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have had difficulty with taxes at times.
When i was setting up a business, i went through federal, state, and local tax laws to figure out what i needed to do. I was kind of annoyed with the fact that *everyone* wanted a piece of the money. And my annoyance with this state of affairs caused me to go back to the theory for the basis of taxation for some resolution.
My current understanding of progressive taxation is that it is an attempt to share the burden (impact) equally along with an understanding of the concept of the marginal value of money.
That is to say that how much money you have influences how much a given percentage of increase or decrease impacts you.
For (an extreme and unrealistic) example, at the poverty line, 1% increase or decrease could mean making your rent and eating, or being homeless. Basic living expenses aren't a percentage of income, they are fixed. For someone like me, 1% has nowhere near the impact. I barely have to pay attention to a budget because there is a great deal of slack in it (and i normally tend to be rather frugal because of my parents).
So for example we could say, the tax rate should have an impact across the board such that an increase of 1% will cause a family to not be able to meet basic living expenses (under some set of assumptions) [ Of course we shouldn't do this ].
You can see how this would not be a flat percentage of one's income (because living expenses aren't a flat percentage of income, even if wealthier people live in more expensive houses).
This was important for my understanding of taxation, (although you probably are aware of all this as you are approaching justification for taxation by utility).
(Sorry for the ham-handed explanation, i'm not an economics person and it shows).
July 30, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that explanation is completely bogus. As I have written here in the past - if it is a matter of satisfying the basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, etc. then last dollars do mean alot. But that is an argument for a basic exemption from taxation, not for levying progressively steeper surtaxes in the middle and upper brackets.
Beyond a certain subsistence and cultural minimum, the idea that last dollars can be rated in accordance with a scale of marginal utility to the individual is just a fantasy. Every individual values his/her last dollars differently. Who is to say whether a middle class man's last dollar that is spent on a new TV is worth any more or less than a rich person whose last dollar is spent on a country club membership?
To make the attempt to force equality of sacrifice by taking more of what the well-to-do man values less is wrong. The utility of a dollar to any person is purely subjective and cannot be measured.
July 30, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fine analysis. Fine piece of writing. Your head and your heart in the right places! Kudos! Stick around here at TPM! :-)
July 30, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for your kind words.
July 30, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just fine.
You want management to have all the more power so you write 'right to work' laws, play the worker against the worker so that 'bonuses' can be made by those who have it all.
You wish to save money by destroying the environment so you pass the 'Clean Air Act'.
This goes on and on. I only disagree that repubs are not all to blame.
THEY ARE AND CONTINUE TO BE.
It is moderate dems that are now the problem
July 30, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moderate Democrats have always been the problem :D
July 30, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good work. Thanks for putting so much effort into your post. There is so much valuable material here. I'm pasting it into a word document for easy reference
July 30, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I see the noble cause in your essay, I can't help but say the repuglicans haven't failed to communicate - they know exactly where they're going. Namoi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, lays out their plan that was field tested in Chile and Argentina. The documentary film she and Avi Lewis made in 2004 has an interesting twist at about 1 hour and 17 minutes into the film. Klein arrives in Argentina and someone hands her a note which says:
*We are the mirror to look in to.
* The mistake to avoid.
* Argentina is the waste that remains of a globalized country.
* We are were the rest of the world is heading.
After Bu$h's failed attempts in war mongering and governing and the Congress up for sale to the highest bidder, it's a safe bet both Bu$h and the repuglicans were steering the US into the same doldrums Argentina is wallowing in. Need I say Wall Street, 401-K's, housing bubble, extended retirement date to get my point across?
What's really troubling is by the time the public in Argentina figured out what was happening, it was too late to stop it. With the election of Obama and a slim majority in both House and Senate, the repuglicans still have the power to manipulate where the country is heading. Just look at the debacle over health care - the repuglicans still call the shots and we'll end up with a plan to their liking that satisfies their corporate benefactors, not the public. That slide off into the abyss we all feared a few months back is still there and the repuglicans are waiting for the right time finish the job they started.
July 30, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree: it wasn't republicans who failed to communicate effectively.
July 30, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like everything I read. Liberalism is what drove the Founding Fathers to spark the Revolution. It was about throwing off an economic yoke, a predatory extractive entity seeking only to maximize what products it could excise from it's colonies.
Unions! Yes! A corporation gets a few people together and creates an organization that benefits a few people. A union gets a lot of people together and creates an organization that benefits MORE people.
Feminists! In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that precluding half the population from participating in the growth of that society is preferable? I want the best of 300 million rather then 150 million, ANY DAY!
Taxes, a necessary evil. It's always painful to let money go without knowing it will benefit us, but it is up to us to ensure those funds are well-spent. We build the interstates and sent people into space with taxes.
Intellectuals! A fancy word for smart, thinkers. Isn't it amazing how the Reich has sown the seeds of mistrust so pervasively that a vast population views intellect with contempt.
Read your Nazi history. These were all the demons of the Third Reich. Who went into the camps before the Jews? Intellectuals and local officials who had the audacity to put their community ahead of the Nazi Party. Before anyone gets all hysterical I said Nazi, read the history. Please, just read the history, and I promise I won't call you an intellectual if you do.
July 30, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink