Parapluie's comment on yesterday's post, regarding a fair society, perfectly set up what I woke up intending to write about. Most of what is below I had written before I broke it into two posts.
Posting a blog today is partly to get politics out of the way. Despite what some might think, of all the things I write about, politics is the one I enjoy least. I write about it because I see it as important to look at what is happening in our government, our culture, the world, but it's not fun for me. It upsets other people and I am a Libra's Libra. Libras don't enjoy upsetting people; but in our search for balance, we clearly do sometimes... or more than sometimes.
What Parapluie said is she didn't understand why those who don't like the taxes or the way the recent recovery package is being used, why aren't they discussing the facts about which aspect they don't like. Where do they feel too much money went, who got it, who should not, and where might they feel it was not enough? She mentioned sites that tell you exactly what is being spent and where.
My point for this post is exactly about that reason. If you go to right wing political blogs, (and this doesn't mean all, it means the average) or if you listen to right wing talk programs, you won't get facts. You will get misrepresented pseudo-factoid and a spiel of fear and anger whenever they touch on political issues. They say they are going to give you information but take quotes out of context to use for their points. Sometimes it's so blatant that I wonder if they are joking, but I doubt their main listener pool wonders about that.
I have written about talk radio's difference this spring when I caught a lot of them driving home from Tucson. Right wing, all of them ranted on and on about how Obama was destroying this country-- head for the hills. Fear and anger were in the voices of all the callers. Finally when I found a left wing speaker it was about specific programs and people-- real examples of problems we face, proposed solutions and no emotion. It would never hold a rightie's interest.
Looking at how the Republican party runs its affairs (pardon the pun) from the outside, it has amazed me for many years. How come they end up with the top of the pile being someone like Sarah Palin? What is the appeal? I have decided to hazard a guess.
I think Republicans (base of the party more than just registered members) operate from emotion-- anger and fear being foremost. They say it's democrats who use emotion, but emotion works less effectively with Democrats. I hear you righties choking on this but hear me out.
You tell Republicans that they are part of the greatest nation that ever existed (righteousness), and they will be furious at anyone who reminds them of any failings of that greatest nation. How unpatriotic (shame is not on the emotion list). Then when that person suggests seceding from the union, they will think what a great idea (does revenge fall under anger?). Was there logic in those two seemingly disparate ideas? It doesn't matter because there was plenty of emotion.
Republican leaders know they don't have to actually make sense to keep their base in line. They simply have to follow the Rush Limbaugh formula-- tell 'em what they want to hear and feed their emotions. I suspect some of the right wing bloggers know the facts, know the details, but they won't try to tell their readers because they know they'd lose them. I am guessing this is because they know their listeners or readers do not want details to consider. They want red meat!
I understand there are Republicans operating on a give me the money method of thinking which might seem that would be logic based, but is it? Excess dollars are really also about emotion. We all need enough of them to secure the basics of life but when the desire for dollars gets to the level of greed, it's emotional. Those emotions are about what we might buy, what we desire, what we wish. To have enough money for those requires unlimited funds.
Looking at one current issue facing this country, for how right wingers see it and why they vote and support what they do-- health care. Wanting a doctor when you need one is basic. What makes people vote against that basic need?
One reason would be they do have a doctor when they need one and feel no empathy for anybody who does not. That would sound like it's logic; but looking more closely, I don't think it is. It's fear that the dollars for that other person to see the doctor will come from their pockets. It's fear that it will bankrupt the country if everyone can go to a doctor when it's necessary. It's anger that the lazy bums will get something for nothing.
Republican leaders also worry that the insurance companies which fund their campaigns will go bust (likely also a Democrat fear). Well that worry might be logical but are these leaders elected to protect insurance companies? I'd rather not dwell too much on that one...
Democrats do paint some stories of families ruined by health care costs that even a moderate insurance didn't cover (compassion is an emotion), but the interest in a workable health care system is mostly based on a practical assumption (which might or might not be correct) that health care will help businesses and individuals when the weight is taken from them.
The assumption of Democrats is that health care takes a big chunk of our national income (far more than any other nation) but we are not receiving the best care for it, and that is hurting our economy.
There is a belief that many people stay in jobs, beneath what they could be doing or even are good at, purely for health insurance. If we are putting over 1/4 of our income into health care,what does that leave for other things? These are practical arguments-- whether correct or not.
I won't say Obama is not trying to use emotion to sell health care, but where it comes to Democrats, he will have better luck if he sticks to logical arguments.
Facts and charts you will find from [The Daily Kos] although you can also find rants to stir up anger from others there, mostly what Markos Moulitsas offers will be more facts than even lefties want to know. You think Europe doesn't have a good system, because it's what Fox told you, at least check out what the statistics look like.
You can find those facts on blogs like from [Robert Reich] or [Paul Krugman] from the left.
When something comes up and I don't know what to think about it, I also enjoy [Politico] where you can often find both sides of a story but some in depth pieces and I have yet to see emotional angst.
My personal favorite and a place I go at least twice a day is conservative[Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish]. Sullivan's is a place to find the latest pundit links on whatever is going on-- from both sides. Warning to Palin fans though, he is definitely not among them.
A site to explain Obama's programs is: [The White House]. As Parapluie mentioned in her comment yesterday, you can find specifics on the Recovery program at: [Recovery] and if you don't like what you see, you can find links there to express that. Have you said you wonder where the cash went, who got it? It's there. I could be wrong but doubt many right wingers will have ever been there-- too many statistics and doesn't feed emotions.
Discussion of Sarah Palin, coming tomorrow, with my thoughts on a prime example of right wing vs left for how we think and what does it take to convince us.
13 comments:
The base is just that -- base. The emotional messages are always merely a distraction for the base to keep them voting for policies that benefit those at the top, who really run the party. Or used to. Now the pandering to the base has pretty much destroyed the advantages the party held for the well off -- hence the current move to the Democrats by the wealthy, who now see the writing on the wall and will have to work for the best deals as taxes on the wealthy inevitably increase.
The crazy base will remain until it splinters back into the whacked out underground of the right-wing movement, until someone figures out how to pander to them again and fool them into voting for yet more policies that actually benefit other people.
They will never learn they are merely tools to their "betters", who see them as useful idiots.
I think what bothers me the most about "liberal" policies and the way the country is going is a bit self serving. All my working life we didn't go on expensive vacations, were not the first (by years) to have a color TV, etc. We setup our mortgage to have a paid off house when we retired so that we were no longer faced with house payments. I always put money away to finance my retirement rather than spend a lot of it on play and other frivolous things, while I saw many of my friends and acquaintances doing the opposite. Now that I am of retirement age I have been able to retire and, while not rich by a long shot, do so in a fair level of comfort.
I've already found the promise of Social Security benefits being tax free, after paying all those years for it with after tax dollars, being taxed on 85%. Now they tell me that my cost of living has not gone up in the last year so there will be no cost of living increase and that will be for the next three years. I don't know what they are figuring that on but most of the things seniors buy have gone up in cost over the last year. I am sure these plans they are discussing will reduce my benefits from Medicare while it will at the same time increase my costs.
Because I planned ahead, I now find that I make too much money in retirement to get any "help" from the public trough, not that I am really wanting it but I would like to have what I worked for, saved for and was promised all those working years. Somehow it still looks like I'll end up giving up those vacations to Hawaii, etc. in order to give more of my money to those who didn't plan ahead. That just doesn't seem to be very fair.
But this is happening to everyone except the richest among us, Dick. Farm Boss intended to start actual retirement and drawing SS at 70 but when the business world fell apart; so did his consulting contracts. He no longer has any income and will start SS in July and I will in November and that's due to the economy. Bush told us those tax cuts were supposed to bolster the economy but not that I have seen yet-- not ours anyway
Inflation is still with us and that is unfair that it's not being recognized. The things people need the most are still going up. I was a bit surprised about taxes on SS also but then I realized that part of the SS payment was made by the businesses.
Government is not going to give up a dime that it can get back somehow and that happened under the Bush administration. Right or left, they all spend it. The question is what will they be spending it on? A war in Iraq or health care and it's a valid question but you can't really say liberals put us here not considering that Republicans controlled Presidency, House and Senate up until the last two years of Bush's administration. Not to mention the wimpy nature of Democrats who still won't step up to the plate.
If you know someone who likes taxes, be sure and point them out to me as they are rare. The problem now is after the debt increased so much to pay for tax cuts for the richest and the wars, we are paying a lot of those taxes directly to other countries to whom we owe the interest. That's what gets me that we are a debtor nation. We weren't when Bush took office. We were beginning to gain on the debt. Someone didn't want that and a war was a good way to make sure it didn't happen. I remember the Johnson years with guns and butter. It never works. Until and unless we get the debt back down, that will only get worse.
Obama has not increased taxes yet but I suspect it's coming. I just hope that the same ones who got the cuts end up paying that increase. I read an article recently that the rich aren't really being hurt much by this crash. It's everybody below them who's feeling the pinch and that includes the poor. If you know anyone who is poor, you know how tough this is on them. No jobs and still the bills are there with energy costs going up regularly.
Still amazes me how the SS people figured no inflation. Wow!
I am drawing on Social Security and feel the pinch as well but if a larger percent of the money is going towards excellent education,I believe in the long run retired folks will benefit when the well prepared youth take the helm of our ship of state.
A generous sum of $45,534,073,000 is available to the Department of Education. If we stop complaining about not getting our fair share and we watch how wisely we direct education, we will be insured for our later most elderly years.
On the recovery it was sold as an infrastructure bill to stimulate the economy. But really only 5 to 10% is for infrastructure and the rest is for other uses, mostly social programs. But Congress voted on it without reading it because it was such an emergency for Obama to get it passed and then he waited 3 days to sign it. It seems that right now they are just shoving everything through as fast as possible with little or no debate. If they truly wanted to be bipartisan then allow the public to see what they are voting on and have some debate on the issues.
Paul, get used to it. The people have figured out they can vote themselves money from the government. Here in California a state of 35,000,000 people 25% of the taxes are paid by 144,000 people. So every time one them leaves it causes a budget problem. The class warfare that the democrats are pushing right now is just going to make things worse. The bottom 90% think they are getting stuff for "free" and the top 10% figure out how to leave or not pay for everyone else.
Whoops my comment was to Dick not Paul. Sorry
One thing that Obama said will NOT be a part of his health care proposal will be tort reform. Legal costs are one of the main reasons that medical costs are so high in this country and he will do nothing to fix that part. He has to protect his base.
He will likely give up on the public option too or the democrats will in congress and the end result will be not having one which will make this just a requirement that you have insurance with them deciding what you can afford to pay. It will end up a bonanza for the insurance companies.
In a lot of ways, whoever you get in there, they all end up doing the same thing. Part of this is how Congress gets their money from the lobbying firms. Getting real change, the kind people said they wanted, that may be beyond us. For me it's not so much about taxes as it is about fairness in them.
Another way to look at those numbers of yours is that we are becoming more and more a have and have not society. A very few people are controlling most of the wealth.
You won't like hearing this but a vigorous middle class was helped a lot by strong unions. When unions abused their power, when business found ways to break them, the unions are no way as effective as they once were. Even in the public job sector, which often determined a lot of the benefits people like teachers got, that is also having problems. We have to recognize we are going through a transition and it didn't begin with Obama. The question is where will that leave the middle? I recently read that the rich have done very well through all of this. No danger to their luxuries. Now the upper middle class (those with a few million), they haven't done so well but the really wealthy is more and more where the money is centered. That cannot be healthy, can it to have a have and have not society?
And Dick, I do not see what you said as one bit self-serving. You worked hard and you were encouraged to believe that was the way to live. A lot never did do that and it makes a lot of folks mad. It's why people get so boiled over taxes-- a feeling that it's not being fair. Which is why it's good that Obama does have where it goes online. Making government available to people knowing where it was spent is important.
There may have been one glitch in the 'recovery' money. I heard they were having trouble borrowing it. It's not like it was sitting there. Somewhere down the line, we won't be able to borrow it if we don't get things in order.
Excellent post, Rain. I am, as you know, a stickler for facts and I remember the woman who said to McCain that Obama was a Muslim (Arab?) Where did she get that info? This is the kind of misinformation the right spews out in reams and the audience/readers believe it. Thinking, or checking out whether it's true or not, rarely happens with this crowd. If FOX says it's true, then it must be.
You are correct Rain we are becoming a society of haves and havenots. And it is a bad thing. Manufacturing jobs used to be a big part of the middle class and the unions that got greedy and the environemental movement has done a good job to kill manufacturing in this country. I am not saying they are 100% to blame but a large part of it.
The super rich will always be ok the Steven Spielbergs and Bill Gates' and Ted Kennedy's will always be rich. But the folks that own one vacation home and live comfortably are feeling the pinch and that is what rolls down hill to the lower economic groups. If the people at your level are spending less then the people at the service level will really feel it.
I look at Lake Tahoe as a good microcosm of what is going on in the country. The environmental movement has virtually stopped new home construction for several years. So now the only people that can afford homes are the rich and the folks that rent the low income housing. The government has indirectly killed the middle and upper middle class. The store owners and the veterinarians and all the other folks that used to cater to the middle class have moved to other places and took their businesses with them. The police and firemen cannot afford to live their either and most live in the Reno area. All that is left is the rich that come for vacation and the poor that serve them and the criminals that prey on both.
It is depressing, ingineer. Very much so and I wonder if it's too late to turn it around?
It is never too late Rain. But with the current crop of self serving politicians on both sides there will be no improvement. I do not know how we will get the true change to get this country back on track, but it will take a lot of work and the "re-setting" of a lot of things not just our relations with Russia.
Post a Comment