Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Would you like some tea with your Kulturpessimismus?

I think that Fareed Zakaria is a tad too optimistic about the likelihood of a certain breed of American right-winger deciding to abandon his fears of the impending liberal-socialist apocalypse.

But he makes some perceptive comments about the pre-history of the Tea Party phenomenon and its role as a bearer of a distinctive kind of cultural pessimism. 

Modern American conservatism was founded on a diet of despair. In 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. began the movement with a famous first editorial in National Review declaring that the magazine “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.” John Boehner tries to tie into this tradition of opposition when he says in exasperation, “The federal government has spent more than what it has brought in in 55 of the last 60 years!”

But what has been the result over these past 60 years? The United States has grown mightily, destroyed the Soviet Union, spread capitalism across the globe and lifted its citizens to astonishingly high standards of living and income. Over the past 60 years, America has built highways and universities, funded science and space research, and — along the way — ushered in the rise of the most productive and powerful private sector the world has ever known.

At the end of the 1961 speech that launched his political career, Ronald Reagan said, “If I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” But the menace Reagan warned about — Medicare — was enacted. It has provided security to the elderly. There have been problems regarding cost, but that’s hardly the same as killing freedom.

For most Americans, even most conservatives, yesterday’s deepest causes are often quietly forgotten. Consider that by Reagan’s definition, all other industrial democracies are tyrannies. Yet every year, the right-wing Heritage Foundation ranks several of these countries — such as Switzerland — as “more free” than the United States, despite the fact that they have universal health care. 
One might also stipulate that Zakaria is a bit too one-sidedly triumphalist about all things bright and beautiful in post-war America. 


Still, he makes an important point. 

But do I think that reasonable arguments like this will matter to the true-believers? For an answer, I offer some comments from Bruce Sterling on the Tea Party that I posted last year (which somehow seems like an eternity ago):

It's always "the worse, the better" with these Trotsky-style fanatics. Every failure, rejection and common-sense setback galvanizes them to new extremes of faith-based ideological weirdness. As someone who hangs out in Europe, I'm used to bizarre political movements, but the Tea Party is truly impressively strange by anybody's standards. Acidheads have had more coherent thinking than these Creationist Randite gold-bar-eating pro-coal zillionaire market fundie people. They lost the American election, but winning one and governing a superpower never seemed to be on their agenda. That hasn't discouraged them, though. They've got ladder notches and fallback positions all the way to the prepper graveyard.

Of course, this kind of paranoid fear-mongering isn't historically unique to the US: in 1945 the Daily Express was warning readers against a Labour Party victory in 1945 with editorials under titles such as 'Gestapo in Britain if Socialists win'. More recently, your average reader of the Daily Mail (which I could definitely imagine using that 'Gestapo' headline during the next British elections) has also decided that the only good things about Britain exist in the dimly remembered past.

Nor, naturally, is cultural pessimism exclusively the property of the political right.

But it is not encouraging -- as I happened to be saying to a colleague earlier today -- that a mere five years after he left office George W. Bush seems, in retrospect, so...moderate.  

The really interesting development in Washington, I think, is not the conflict between the Tea Party and the Democrats -- which, as loud and fun as it is, makes for pretty predictable theatre -- but rather the signals that the grown-up business types of the sort that used to dominate the Republican Party I remember in my youth just might be getting a bit nervous about what one of them calls 'the Taliban minority'.

I mean, American politics has now become a distant spectator sport for me. I live in a country where the main conservative party has its eye firmly on the nation's economic interests and where a laughable figure like Ted Cruz would have little chance of being taken seriously as a Kanzlerkandidat.

Believe me: I am thankful -- every day -- for the generally boring sensibility of German politics. 

And, hey, even the Germans are showing the odd sign of optimism these days...

It's a funny old world.


Friday, December 21, 2012

Synchronicity

So I read via Esquire that today's Republican Party is not in good shape, as is apparent by the position of John Boehner, House leader:

Last night, he couldn't get the votes to pass a truly horrid plutocrat's wet dream. He couldn't get the votes to gut Obamacare or Wall Street reform. He couldn't get the votes to throw children off food stamps and he couldn't get the votes to throw the elderly off meals-on-wheels. He couldn't get the votes for a simple, vicious stunt.  He couldn't  get the votes because he couldn't budge enough Republicans to support a tax increase in the upper .01 percent of taxpayers. He couldn't do it because he had nothing with which to threaten people who look on governing the country as though they are running an evening-drive talk-radio program in Bugtussle. He couldn't do it because he is a Republican pretending to be a fanatic who went hat in hand to a bunch of fanatics pretending to be Republicans.


Which sounds accurate enough to me, but then I'm partial to hearing gloom and doom predictions for the American right wing, so I tend to doubt my own satisfaction on this score.

But then I hear something similar (if less...expressive) from a member of said right wing:

Persuading a majority of Republicans to cast a politically treacherous vote to allow higher taxes could have enhanced his leverage with Obama in future talks to rein in the national debt, Republicans said. But failure could imperil his hold on power, said Craig Shirley, a Republican consultant who wrote a biography of former president Ronald Reagan.

“If this was a parliamentary system, tonight’s dissent on Plan B would be seen as a vote of no confidence in Boehner,” Shirley said. “The national GOP is now simply a collection of warring tribal factions.”


Well I have to say that the prospect of that particular Somalia-on-the-Potomac sounds like fun.

Though I can't see that shooting the fiscal Niagara is going to be that pleasant, either for the US or the rest of us.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Glengarry Get Lost

Reading a New York Times article on Christopher Hitchens's book criticism led me to something I'd missed over the summer: Hitch's review of David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge.

I haven't read Mamet's description of (or explanation for) his abandonment of left-liberalism for new-fangled right-wingery, and I don't think I will be.

It struck me that his book sounds very much like an expanded version of his 2008 Village Voice essay, "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'".

And that, though much shorter, was more than enough of a chore to read.

As I noted at the time (rather testily, I will admit).

It seems that, these days, Mamet's someone best ignored.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

It's not so much a policy, it's more like free verse

Prospective Republican candidate for president Herman Cain (who is apparently leading the party's polls), responding to a question at last night's debate about how he would respond in the face of a possible European financial meltdown:
"Just like a dollar must be a dollar when we wake up in the morning, just like 60 minutes is in an hour, a dollar must be a dollar."
That's very reassuring.
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung helpfully informs us today that a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination embarrassed himself in last night's debate.

I wouldn't have been surprised if it had been the Governor of Texas; however, it seems to have been some other chap.



This race is even more crowded than I thought it was! I should start paying more attention.

And so, it seems should the FAZ.


Monday, June 13, 2011

Palingate cancelled

No, Sarah Palin's emails are not particularly exciting. Well, who would have thought it. Even the Guardian has abandoned its initially hysterical reportage ("Join the fray! Comb the mail! Make the scoop!") and turned to ... I don't know, Glastonbury or whatever. The Syrian man blogger.

The most insightful thing to learn from "The Palin Emails" so far has been her exasperation at the claim that she believed that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at one point in the Earth's history.

Well didn't they - I mean, coexist? Here's a little tune to restore your faith, Sarah (Sorry, I just couldn't help it):

Monday, February 07, 2011

Ixnay on the azi-Nay

We're still a bit sunk in the work-related grind at the moment, hence the light blogging.

And I'm aware that the following video isn't very new.

But I certainly enjoyed it.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
24-Hour Nazi Party People
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

Sometime soon our Will to Blog will return.

But until then: who is this 'Gerr-bels' person with whom these commentators are so obsessed?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Frankenmouse follies

There's been a lot of (justified) laughter at the views of Delaware's Republican senatorial primary victor Christine O'Donnell on self-abuse and such like.

Still, I would agree with those observers who have recommended that the Democrats not stroke push those, um, buttons too vigorously hard, as her arguments, as goofy as they are, accord with the views of a fair number of her fellow citizens.

But I was interested to run across another comment that she made in 2007 on Bill O'Reilly's talkshow.

The topic was 'Is cloning monkeys morally wrong?':

O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to keep...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

Yeah.

Sadly, science hasn't yet advanced that far. (And as Douglas Adams knew, the mice are already well ahead of us in the brain department.)

However, I can't help thinking that, were her delusional fantasy true, said mice would have been more qualified than Ms. O'Donnell to hold political office.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

It is seriously foolish to take the foolish seriously

It depresses me that I, along with much of the rest of the world, have had to bother with the mad rantings of a deranged pastor of a tiny congregation.

The situation is not a good one.

As things stand, a substantial collection of what are supposed to be the most powerful people in the world, from President Smartest Guy in the Room, through the country’s most senior soldier, the secretary of Defence and the head of the State Department have felt the need to cajole and plead with an individual with all the credibility of the protein man who used to parade up and down Oxford Street denouncing peanuts.

Pastor Jones is far from the only one of his ilk, and he's offered the rest of them an ideal model to follow.

I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more of this kind of thing.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Getting it all wrong

There are moments when, at least in a political sense, I find that I'm glad I'm several thousand kilometres away from the land of my birth.

One of them came today: according to a current poll, 18% of Americans believe that openly Christian Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not, of course, that being a Muslim, in itself, would be anything to be ashamed of.

But since we can imagine that probably nearly every person among that 18 per cent thinks it is something reprehensible -- and since the belief is simply wrong -- it's hardly a good day for those who would want to defend the sanity of the American world of media and politics.

[ADDENDUM]: 'Also, 19% of Americans believe that the sun goes round the earth. Ignorance, probably, though the proposition that truly radical distrust – why, I can see it moving with my own eyes - has permanently lodged itself in a fifth of the US population is quite intriguing.'

From here.

Monday, February 01, 2010

Raising more questions than answers. Not that that's a bad thing at all.

There have been a couple of interesting (and brief) posts in recent days at Crooked Timber.

On America:

But there are clear senses in which it is not right that the U.S. is a center-right nation. For example, it’s at least odd to have a center-right nation that lacks a center-right. There aren’t that many Olympia Snowes around – not even Olympia Snowe herself, during this whole health care business. It’s not as though America is the country where, when you elect a guy like Obama, you have to beat the center-right off with a stick, compromise-wise, when the center-left is plainly crying out to meet somewhere in the middle.

On Europe:

Almost every state of any significance in history has aspired to dominate its known world. In the last century, Britain, Germany, Russia and even France aspired to this role, and right now Russia and China are keen to try. Religiosity, militarism, inequality, and governments that do little for their subjects are the norm rather than the exception. Long hours of hard work have been the lot of humankind at least since the arrival of agriculture.

The real exception to all of this is Europe. The largest economic aggregate in world history, it has enough military power to repel any invader, but is deeply uninterested in using this power to any more glorious end. It grows by a process of reluctant accretion, controlled by ever more onerous admission requirements. In all of history, it would be hard to find anything comparable in terms of pacifism, godlessness, equality, leisure for the masses or public provision of services.

... It’s for these reasons that American views of Europe resemble de Tocqueville in reverse. Something so unprecedented, and against the laws of nature, they think, cannot possibly survive, let alone prosper. And yet it does.

[Footnote references removed.]

I find both of these comments to be on target.

But a comprehensive explanation for either phenomenon eludes me.

But they're both worth thinking about.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Premature evaluation

As much as I continue to admire Barack Obama and despite my measured hope that he will -- at the end of his second term -- be able to look back on a number of great accomplishments in domestic and foreign affairs, I was (like everyone except for a certain committee in Oslo) more than a bit flabbergasted by today's announcement that he had won the Nobel peace prize.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I would agree that he has made “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, but what actual results these might lead to remain more than a little unclear.

I don't have much to add to the current debate, but at the moment I find myself agreeing with a couple of comments suggesting that the best thing may be for Obama to politely decline the award paving the way for it to be given to a more deserving candidate.

It's unfortunate that something that would ordinarily be so welcome appears likely to pose a thorny problem for an administration that has a lot of other pressing concerns at the moment.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Charts and graphs

Just a couple of the more interesting visualisations of data that I've run across in the last 24 hours or so.

Evaluating the US health-care debate with regard to truthiness:


Background. Via.



Also, the number of nuclear weapons in the world:


Source, Wikimedia Commons. Source for underlying numbers. Via and discussion.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Disturbing and unhealthy

I've been noting with disappointment and concern (though not too much surprise) the lunacy and paroxysms of rage that have been accompanying right-wing responses to President Obama's efforts to somewhat expand existing forms of government health insurance so as to provide new opportunities for those that the current system does not seem to be serving well.

This is all a bit academic for me, as I live in a civilised country now (where the mainstream conservative parties are...you know, conservative and disagreeable, but in the main sane), but I liked Ezra Klein's comment:

This is something broader then a reaction to particular provisions in particular pieces of legislation. This is about how the conservative movement reacts to progressive change. My colleague Steve Pearlstein got it right this morning. "Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society," he wrote. "Whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off."

That doesn't mean Obama's bill. It could mean a compromise like Wyden-Bennett, or something else. But what's going on out there isn't about a specific bill. It's about the fear of change. It doesn't really allow for negotiations and counter-offers. And it is very, very ugly.


Yes it is.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Kill da wabbit

He may be facing all kinds of crises that I'm glad I don't have responsibility for solving...but somehow it's images like this that make me feel most sorry for Barack Obama.


I mean...why?!

You don't see Angela Merkel having to do things like that.

Or at least (he said, pre-emptively covering his ass in case some smart person finds a rare counterexample) not so often...

Friday, April 03, 2009

Saturday, January 24, 2009

In an imperfect union

Like perhaps more than a few Obama supporters, I was not exactly thrilled by the prominence of God-talk in and around the inauguration.

Still, as an American, I'm not only familiar with this kind of thing but also aware that anyone openly hostile to religion wouldn't get anywhere near occupying White House.

And Obama is not, as is quite clear, such a person in any case.

Ophelia tries to put some of these issues in perspective. Helpfully, as I see it:

I wish we could ditch all the God-talk. I'm very glad he included non-believers, but I still wish we could ditch the God talk. But...(this is where things get really sinister) I don't mind it as much as I would from someone else, or as much as I did from Bush or Clinton. Have I lost my mind? Partly, maybe - that is, the euphoria of the whole thing motivates me to bury my normal reaction so that I can go on being euphoric. That's not what you'd call sound intellectual practice - so that's a fair cop. I'm giving Obama a break that I wouldn't give other people. (Fortunately, it makes no difference to him or to them - I don't want to come over all self-important here! I'm just exploring how this stuff works, from the inside; I'm not saying What I Think Matters.) But some of that is because the God talk trails with it the old civil rightsy rhetoric. I wouldn't want to be without The Promised Land or All God's Children or (perhaps least of all) 'Thank God almighty, we're free at last.' That's in spite of the fact that in any other context that line would irritate the hell out of me, because stricly speaking it's absurd - thanking god for freedom and just politely ignoring the previous four centuries. In any other context I would rudely ask why god gets the credit for the good stuff and none of the blame for the bad stuff; I would ask why, if god could free the slaves, god didn't just prevent them from being enslaved in the first place. But - in the civil rights context, I don't. If I had the choice, I would keep all the presidential language secular, but since I don't...I feel inclined to turn a blind eye. That's a double standard. Nolo contendere.


The rest is worth reading.

As is a somewhat older post from Dale (and even somewhat older one), responding to a challenge from Norm directed at atheist supporters of the (sometimes demonstratively) theistic Obama.

Dale quotes Obama himself, who expresses the crucial issue very well:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.


And Dale comments:

I do not want to see any candidate presume to be god's proxy (cf. this and this) -- such talk is, by my lights, deluded and dangerous, and must be subject to sharp criticism in all cases. But here on earth, political engagement requires choices between concrete and imperfect alternatives.


These constitute, I think, a couple of useful guidelines on this topic for the next four (and, with any luck, eight) years.

Mein Führer! I can walk!

Among the odder paragraphs I've run across in the post-inauguration coverage:

As for Cheney, he attracted various arch valedictions after he appeared on Inauguration Day in a wheelchair, having apparently strained his back while filling a removal box. Comparisons with Dr Strangelove were criticised by members of the US disabled community who said it reflected unfairly on wheelchair users.

Offered without comment.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Just the end of the beginning

Having spent three cold mornings on 'the Mall' witnessing inaugurations in person (one with youthful optimism, one with already chastened disappointment, one with a sense of palpable discomfort...I'll let you figure out which was which) it was with a curious jumble of feelings that I watched today's event on a small (and often interrupted...clogged tubes, no doubt) window on my computer screen.

Other than the fascinating experience of viewing a parade of American political elites wander onto the stage (my, how frail does the elder Bush look? And how hale the Mondales and Carters!) there is some strange combination, I must note, of appalling and stirring in inauguration ceremonies.

It's perhaps the odd mixture of grandiose empire and humble republic that is uniquely American.

I must confess to a busy confluence of emotions today, most of which I want to keep to myself.

But, to put it briefly: a bit too much of the Almighty, but, all things considered, a very inspiring beginning, the kind of thing that makes one clutch one's passport with a sincerity not usually felt.

Much of the rest of the administration is going to be engaged in grubby politicking; but, you know, that's the nature of a republic, and I hope that President Obama proves he has the mettle for making headway in that game. Still, the guidelines set today were, as far as I could hear them, quite a good beginning.


Enough prologue. Let's get down to business.

(Image via the Washington Post)

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Of the twits and the twittering

The aspirants for the post of Republican National Committee Chairman gathered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, a couple of days ago to offer their visions for how the party can reverse its apparently declining political fortunes.

As the Washington Post reports (via), appealing to the youth through electronic media will be a key part of that strategy.

"We have to do it in the Facebook, with the Twittering, the different technology that young people are using today," [incumbent Chairman] Duncan ventured.

Some of the candidates have up to 4,000 friends 'in the Facebook'.

Thus, compared to former Sen. Ted 'Series of Tubes' Stevens, they certainly have every right to sit at the cool kids' table in the school cafeteria. They are no doubt aware of all internet traditions.

A stirring image, indeed, of today's conservative movement:


(Image source)