U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 07, 2011 07:00 PM UTC

Best explanation of "progressive" anger yet?

  • 63 Comments
  • by: ellbee

On August 6th, Paul Berkowitz of the Wall Street Journal penned an editorial that I really believe hit home with me in terms of the hypocrisy that I see from the very far left.  For all the vitriol I have seen aimed at the ‘Tea Party Movement’ (whatever that is, exactly), I would like to point out, via Berkowitz, that the truly radical extremists in today’s American political landscape are the “progressives”, and how it’s their platform that’s in almost direct opposition to public sentiment, and reality.

Update:  Hey, Guvs – can I put a hit counter on this so I can see how many Polsters read this but don’t respond?

I’m not a guv but yes –PCG

🙂

How quickly things have changed.  Within moments of a deranged, non-political, sick man shooting a Democratic Congresswoman and other innocents, there was a predictable outrage aimed at the powers that had just swept to power in the House in resounding, unprecedented fashion.

We had blame being pushed at Sarah Palin (?), the Tea Party, the GOP in general, and we were given a campaign speech/rally in the guise of a cry for civility where the only thing missing was the mascot rappelling from the roof.  Anyone right of center, or anyone who had been angered by in particular the ACA process was chastised for having their temperatures go up at all, as we ‘all needed to get along’ – said the President at the time:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

After this debt debate, and the more embarrassing displays of incivility by the Democrats, I’ve been looking for the next scheduled rally but have somehow missed it.

Berkowitz:

[Regarding the debt negotiations]

But that’s not how progressives have tended to see things. They have ferociously attacked congressional Republicans, particularly those closely associated with the tea party movement, with something approaching hysteria.

Consider the unabashed incivility of progressive criticism, its tone dictated from the top. During and after the budget negotiations, we heard that tea party representatives were content with “blowing up our government” (Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne). Then came accusations that “Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people” (New York Times columnist Joe Nocera), while acting like “a maniacal gang with knives held high” (New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd). At the height of negotiations, Vice President Biden either said, or agreed with House Democrats with whom he was meeting who said, that Congressional Republicans “have acted like terrorists.”

How does one reconcile these statements with the condescending pleadings and scolding, and placing of blame for horrific murders on, for example, a map with targets or crosshairs on it, which is a metaphor used by both parties for years?  To wit:

How often they have haughtily lectured the nation on the vital importance of civility in public discourse, the urgency of constraining executive power under law, and the need for impartial expertise in public affairs to pragmatically weigh competing public-policy options. But in the debt-limit debate the virtues they profess could hardly have been more spectacularly absent.

In Berkowitz’ opinion (and mine), the point has been missed.

One might view the debt deal as evidence that democracy in America, though often unlovely in execution, is alive and well. After all, President Obama’s $800 billion-plus stimulus package was passed by Congress in early 2009 on a mostly party-line vote. It was followed in April by his $3.5 trillion budget, enacted without a single Republican vote, that contained sizeable across-the-board funding increases for federal departments and agencies. The president devoted the next 12 months to passing costly and unpopular health-care legislation that dramatically increased government’s responsibility for regulating approximately one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Employment hovered at approximately 9% and still does.

In the congressional elections of 2010, the electorate, led by the tea party movement and disaffected independents, rendered its judgment on the president’s priorities. The people dealt him and his party a historic midterm defeat, producing large Republican gains in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House, including 87 freshmen.

The voters’ message was clear: Cut spending, compel the government to live within its means, and put Americans back to work. In short, the president and his party badly overreached in 2009 and 2010; and in 2011 the Republicans, to the extent their numbers in Congress allowed, have effectively pushed back.

In other words, you don’t get to call the majority of American voters “terrorists” because they’re angry about the direction the far left, in supermajority power for only two years (although in control of Congress from 2006), have taken the country’s finances and scope of government in the absence of being able to take the hearts and minds of most Americans in a big government, Euro-Socialism model.  Hence the mid-terms of 2010.

So perhaps the reason for the acidic vitriol, accompanied by an absolute lack of positive economic results is not anything that has been left behind by any previous administration, but a clash of “progressive” philosophy with reality, and certainly the majority American view of what makes our country exceptional.

Add to this the progressive belief that human beings can be perfected through the rule of experts, and you have a recipe-when the people make choices contrary to progressive dictates-for generating contempt among the experts for the people whose interests they claim to alone represent. And not just contempt, but even disgust at diversity of opinion, which from the progressive’s perspective distracts the people from the policies demanded by impartial reason.

The progressive mind is on a collision course with itself. The clash between its democratic pretensions and its authoritarian predilections has generated within its ranks seething resentment for, and rage at, conservatives. Unless progressives cultivate the enlightened virtues they publicly profess and free themselves from the dogmatic beliefs that undergird their political ambitions, we can expect even more harrowing outbursts to come.

Seemingly, a majority of Americans don’t like the ‘smart set’ telling them what to do, when common sense tells them that the ideas being thrust on them don’t make sense, being simple folk as they are.  Being told they are too dense to understand the true ‘brilliance’ of these ideas does little to allay these masses from concern and anger about the future of the country.

As an aside, and to head off the predictable response I’m sure is coming: that the progressives are allowed to take extreme measures and dialogue to save us from the existential threat placed on us by the Republicans (or whatever hilarious invective derivative one can come up with – Republican’t, GOTP, Rupugs, etc.), I  wanted to leave you with a chart, put together by Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.  

It uses seasonally-adjusted private-sector employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and compares that to control of Congress.  Job creation contrasted with the control of legislation that might affect said job creation.

The blue colors of this graph show when Democrats held complete control of Congress, while the white areas show when Republicans held complete control.  The two purple areas show when Democrats controlled the Senate, as York notes above, and when Republicans controlled only the House.  This gives a much different picture of when job losses occurred, and who controlled policy in Congress when it happened.

When Democrats talk about “eight years of job losses” during the Bush administration, just show them this chart.

I’d love to hear a civil defense of Berkowitz’ supposition, and of what, in my opinion, is hypocrisy regarding vitriol.

Also a defense of what I think is pretty good evidence that progressive policies hindering job creation, which really should be job number one right now, right?  

Is there anyone out there that thinks that this anger we’ve been witnessing is born of frustration that comes from seeing deeply held socio-economic beliefs not being supported by socio-economic reality?

Tweet
Share

Comments

63 thoughts on “Best explanation of “progressive” anger yet?”

  1. Refuting your premises point by point (“a campaign speech/rally in the guise of a cry for civility”) would be a waste of a sunny Sunday (or any other day), but let’s just dissect two whoppers.

    PPACA is unpopular because Americans are by large against pulling the plug on Grandma. (Where would they have gotten that idea?) and the government getting between them and their doctor (unless it’s some hussy who wants birth control.)  They are however in favor of the individual elements that the bill actually does contain when they are polled separately.  Demagoguing (lying) works, and your side knows it damn well.

    As for the supermajority you claim Democrats had for two years, the facts (known to have a liberal bias) say otherwise.  The Dems had 60 seats in the Senate from the seating of Al Franken until the election of Scott Brown, and that’s only if you count Ben Nelson, who would be considered a moderate Republican most places besides Nebraska.

    If you want to be considered reasonable, you would do well to lay off the boilerplate and stick to the truth.

    1. And I said, pretty clearly, why most don’t:

      angered by in particular the ACA process

      Also, how can one’s opinion be a lie?

      As an aside, I think the birth control non-copay mandate is one of  two or three good aspects to the law.  

      1. Was all that was left after the Republicans poisoned the debate with their lies (I didn’t read Sarah Palin saying “it’s my opinion”.)  To give the people what they really wanted (in the bill) they had to maneuver around the unpopularity of what your side told them was in it.  Were you this outraged by the process by which Medicare Part D passed?

        I appreciate your own position, but you’re making a Red v. Blue argument, and the opinions of two little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy fight.

      1. Is a bridge too far; way too emotionally fraught, though Republican policies do lead to more violent deaths.  Were you aware Nocera apologized?

        Hostage takers is 100% accurate.  Threatening the world economy to score $200B/yr deficit reduction when that number stands at $1.5T/yr is irrationally irresponsible.  Structural changes need to be made, and those can’t be debated on a “drop dead” deadline. Achieving a meaningful solution also requires compromises from both sides.  I’m comfortable in my opinion that the drivers of your party are fucking nuts (see birthers.)  

        They’re also the pawns of the “job creator” class which has been looking to drown government in a bathtub since way before Grover Norquist was swimming around in his father’s balls.

  2. But that’s not how progressives have tended to see things. They have ferociously attacked congressional Republicans, particularly those closely associated with the tea party movement, with something approaching hysteria.

    Why in the world should we get upset over default?  If we’d just had the courage of the Tea Party’s convictions, we could have dumped all that debt and used the savings to restart the job-creation engine.  Debt-free and guilt-free.  No consequences whatsoever and our worries would have been over.

    How silly of us to feel threatened and angry that the GOP leadership was pushing us towards global economic disaster?  

    Seriously, if the 60 Democratic Senators (counting the Independents) are what passes as “very far left” in your mind, then what passes for “moderate Republicans” would shock Richard Nixon, much less Dwight Eisenhower.

      1. Symbolic votes vs. very serious consequences votes are what matter.  I.E. making a point with your vote vs. solving a serious problem with your vote.

        And yes, you will see more hyperbole and stark, even apocalyptic, imagery coming from Democrats.  Who says you can’t learn anything from a Republican?

        We won’t need to resort to the deceptions and blatant lies used by GOP hacks however [Death Panels!!!!], since there are enough supporting facts on our side to make that unnecessary.  

          2. Ellbee, your insurance company comment got me thinking about the perversity of the for-profit business model for health insurance.

            What other business would actively seek out only customers that don’t need their services, and thrives by eliminating the ones that do?

            That this industry makes thousands of life and death decisions every day makes this business model even more perverse.

            If there is a compelling argument for single-payer heathcare, this is the one.

            1. There will still be panels, there will just be one, and it will be run by partisan bureaucrats who have proven in nearly every other instance that they are less capable and even incompetent compared to their private-sector counterparts.

              I believe that the ACA was created to destroy private insurance over time,  giving everyone no choice but to be in a government plan.  Well, I don’t want that, and I should get to choose if I work for my living and choose to spend my money in that way.

              That’s where I think Berkowitz absolutely nails it:

              (Emphasis mine)

              Add to this the progressive belief that human beings can be perfected through the rule of experts, and you have a recipe-when the people make choices contrary to progressive dictates-for generating contempt among the experts for the people whose interests they claim to alone represent.

              I (and apparently a majority of other Americans) don’t want the government overseeing my health care.  

              That’s why they’re pissed, plus, the fact that it took such a slimy, disingenuous path to passage and then was gloated over.  I’m saying this honestly, and with out a hint of snark or shittiness that I’m sometimes won’t to do.

              1. But, if by some miracle, reason and pragmatism took hold, the notion of single-payer is that it becomes the baseline.  Private insurance doesn’t go away (just like private education will always be with us even though we have “socialized and subsidized” public education). In fact their profits would skyrocket because the government would take on the worst risks, and the private insurance companies can cherry-pick from the healthiest and wealthiest.

                You could still buy all the gold-plated policies you like.  But extending at least basic care for all saves money for the nation in the long run.

                Best practices, as defined by medical professionals, would determine the levels and types of care.  Not profit-motivated insurance execs, and not government bureaucrats.  

                The wheeling and dealing over what became our health care reform bill was driven by the lowest common denominator of what was practical to pass.  The starting point of adopting a Heritage Foundation plan from the early ’90’s was a misguided offering to the GOP to get the process going with the least amount of opposition.  Good luck with that.  Then getting the 60 remaining Senators on board was a case study in the vast diversity of opinion and personalities on the Democratic caucus.  Unfortunately, the last 3 or 4 votes were equivalent to our own internal Tea Party.

  3. I’m here.

    Liberals uncivil?    BIOYA, Ellbee!

    . . . er, I mean . . .  BIOYA please, Ellbee!  (Consider yourself refuted, Miss Manners.)  ;~)

  4. Both parties take political rhetoric and discourse to unpleasant places.

    You don’t like the far left messaging and framing of the GOTP and the right in general? boo-hoo.

    Too much is made of the 2010 elections.

    Voters aren’t that careful.  When 50% plus of the electorate ican be convinced of ….the ridiculously untrue the only reasonable conclusion  is that something else moves voters than reason and fact.  Of course pinions matter, even when they are mis-infomed and … unreasonable.

    The President does not have a secret button under his desk that moves private sector employment up or down, nor that is capable of driving GDP.

    Tax receipts are too low, spending is too automatic.

    What to do?

    Reasonable people can differ, but reasonable voices get drowned out.  A reasonable debate would have been about meaningful line item expenditures to cut (hint: cutting foreign aid doesn’t help) and ways to fairly and carefully increase revenue.

    Congress proved incapable of either demonstrating, that it  is unreasonable.  Which, in fact, may be te logical and practically inevitable result of American voters being unreasonable.

    By the way, Ireland should have no trouble since their tax rates are so low.

    And the “Texas miracle” turned out to be mythical exaggeration.

    1. He could have done much, much more that would have been beneficial for employment.  Instead, he fooled around and came up with an incredibly horrible law that adds billions to the deficit.

      Check out Phillip Klein.

      http://campaign2012.washington…

      Defenders of Obama will attempt to pin the blame on his predecessor, President Bush, and on intransigent Tea Party radicals in the current Congress. But that would leave out the part in between. For his first two years in office, Obama’s party controlled both chambers of Congress – for part of that period, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. During that time period, he and his fellow Democrats could have passed his supposedly ideal, long-term, deficit-reduction package — one that represented a “balanced approach” between spending cuts and tax increases. It also could have delayed the deficit reduction for several years, so it wouldn’t have affected the current weak economy or the “investments” he considers crucial. Forget about actually accomplishing serious deficit reduction — he didn’t even attempt it.

      When Obama came into office, he argued that we needed deficit spending to boost the economy, so he passed a $800 billion stimulus package. Then, in one of his first supposed pivots to the deficit, he convened a ‘fiscal responsibility summit’ in February 2009. But that actually turned out to be part of a different pivot altogether. It was during that summit that then White House Budget Director Peter Orszag declared, “health care reform is entitlement reform.”

      And so, for the next 13 months, Obama spent all of his energies trying to get health care legislation across the finish line. The end product was a plan that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did not bend the health care cost curve down.  Let’s even set aside the argument over the accounting gimmicks that were employed to obtain a CBO score that showed modest deficit reduction. The reality is this: the law used money raised through tax hikes and Medicare cuts that otherwise would have been available for deficit reduction, to instead expand Medicaid by 18 million beneficiaries and create a massive new health care entitlement.

      1. All over the world, people have done this “bending” but the GOTP has rejected similar attempts here.

        Someone somewhere must have the secret plan to lower health care cost in America.  

        Who’s hiding it?

        Not Paul Ryan, not Ron Paul.  get sick, die fast  Who? Where is it?  The “Obama” health care reforms were 90%  drawn from the R plan of 1994.  Newt? He’s been holding out?  What’s that guy up to anyway? Does he have a job? Is he running interviewing for one? (Is he still on #3?)

        1. …is going to have to look a lot more like Ryan’s the ACA, if the goal is becoming solvent.

          Ryan’s plan leaves FUTURE seniors in a bad spot, but if ACA can force pretty much every insurer to cover pretty much anyone, and mandate insurance coverage, couldn’t legislation be enacted that takes the stipend from Ryan’s plan, combines it with some sort of HSA’s, and creates a high-risk pool with lots and lots of death panels?

          1. It’s why no other modern, 1st worldish economy has tried it that way. Not the Swiss who invented insurance, not the Brits who perfected it.

            But Paul Ryan got it?  Nope.

            What we need is a health insurance plan that is not allowed to exclude any American. With actuarial sustainable premium rates and a regulated-utility-like profit margin. And no one gets to be uninsured. We all pay to play.

            Or we remove the crazy rule that providers cannot turn away the uninsured or indigent and go to a market solution where we all get what we pay for.

      2. I have repeatedly offered up resources that look at other health care systems throughout the world that offer quality care at a fraction of the cost that we pay here. Every time I do, all I get back is crickets. Global warming? Same deal. You dismiss anything that lies even a smigeon outside of your preconceived notions.

        The Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D were passed with more lying and deception than ACA. Yet, somehow, you fail to take that into account when you praise them. So please, don’t start lecturing about hypocrisy.

        The most entertaining part of your diary is that you’re accusing liberals of hypocrisy regarding civil speech in politics. Contained within that is the explicit admission that Republicans are guilty of the same. Really, all you’re saying is Dems do it, too.  

        1. I’m being completely honest, and I’ve read most of the links you sent me, and I thank you for that.

          What I dislike about ACA are probably some of the things you like about it.  We’re allowed to disagree without one of us “lying” about it.

          Many of us do not want the government in charge of our health care, even if it’s cheaper.  Do you understand that?

          What’s hypocritical is to blame someone for mass murder, and then say something worse and expect to not get called on it.  It’s that simple.

          1. Many of us do not want the government in charge of our health care, even if it’s cheaper.

            Do you think you’re in the majority? I don’t.

            And this?

            The voters’ message was clear: Cut spending, compel the government to live within its means, and put Americans back to work. In short, the president and his party badly overreached in 2009 and 2010;

            Well, one out of three ain’t bad, I suppose. But the election in 2010 was all about jobs (or more correctly, personal income). When have Republicans EVER cut spending? (BTW, the graph you posted is more proof of Keynesian economics than anything else 🙂

            You blithely accuse Democrats of over-reach, and then tell us that Americans want to see spending cut. Show me the survey that says that Americans want to cut SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and military (well, maybe the latter). And we both know, that until you cut those, you ain’t cut shit. Hell, the TeaPartiers ran ads accusing Dems of cutting Medicare. How rich is that?

            Oh, here’s another ref I just googled up – lots of fodder for discussion here. Compare what Berkowicz wrote and you seconded with the results of the Kaiser tracking poll.

            http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls…

            1. I don’t think they want to cut those things, I think they want them to be healthy so they’ll get something out of them.

              My financial guy flat out told me I’m not getting SS.  Now, he could be wrong, and it’s smart to plan conservatively, but that’s the word I have.  I’d rather fix it, or let me the fuck out so I can invest my own money in something that will give me a better return.

              SS and Medicare/Medicaid simply aren’t sustainable long-term, and you could tax the top 2500 earners in the U.S. at 100% and it wouldn’t make a dent.

              Can you explain your Keynes comment?  My guess is that you show the R’s inheriting the benefit from Dem spending, but I don’t want to assume.

              1. that there was no need to move my IRA pension funds to money markets because in the end, there would be a debt ceiling bill passed and the market would be just fine. Despite her assurances, I moved my money and while I am not earning interest (what interest, ho ho?), I am also not racking up thousands of dollars in losses like I did in 2008.

                Now, she could be wrong and guess what, she was. Whadda ya know.

                What was your point, again?

              2. When Republicans are in power, govt spending goes up. When govt spending goes up, jobs are created. Therefore, when Republicans are in power, jobs are created.

                I briefly looked for evidence to support this, but gave up after about a minute. But I know it’s true.

          3. You might just as well have said “I know PPACA will  put the government in control of my healthcare because Betsy McCaughey told me it would.”  No thought, just a bullshit talking point.

            1. Missed it.

              I believe the intent of PPACA, over time, is to make it impossible for private insurance to exist, but forcing mandates and coverages.  Employers would then be forced to dump employees into State or Government run programs, and private folks would have no other option, either.

              Is it really necessary for you to say things like “No thought, just a bullshit talking point”? I mean, really.  What’s the point?  Do you think that somehow encourages a response?  I’m not fighting with you, or insulting you, so just quit, please.  I’m trying to learn something from you.

              1. Medicaid and Medicare don’t tell me how to treat patients.  

                Frankly, I think maybe they should (or my partner anyway) because there’s a  lot of worthless testing and treatment going on that gets zero pushback from the payer (whether government or private.)

                But what validates your assumption?  You think you know what the intent is?  Maybe you’re wrong, and the intent is to make sure all insurance provides things which keep people healthy and prevent expensive illnesses, and costs go down as a result?  Cogent arguments are not made by your claims to mindreading.

                As for the tone, this is not the first time I’ve engaged you on something you wrote which was more Karl Rove talking point than factual statement.  If you want to be worthy of the “thinking man’s conservative” label on this blog, show that you’re thinking.

                PPACA doesn’t put the government in charge of your healthcare.  You’ve now laid out a scenario in which it might several steps down the road, but your first statement didn’t show any of that thought process.

                1. I don’t want any step that might push us toward that eventuality, even if it’s down the road.

                  Are there some great aspects to the law?  Yes.  

                  But I am suspicious of the intent behind it because of the President’s stated desire to have single payer, even if it takes years and a few steps.  

                  I don’t want it, and I have the right not to want it.  I also seethe remembering the process through which it (PPACA) was passed.

  5. But it’s apropos to this “your side is meaner than my side” debate.  Snopes detailed 20 urban myths about W. that were completely or partially false; 9 about Saran Palin; and 88 about Obama.

    Obama is a radical Muslim who was sworn into office on a Quran and won’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance!  He was endorsed for president by the Ku Klux Klan, and his campaign was funded by Hugo Chavez!  His family is a bunch of crack addicts, gay porn stars, felons, and “Najeeba, Basheera, and Washeteria”; if you think the Clintons and Rodhams were bad, wait until that bunch starts running around the White House!  Obama won’t salute during the national anthem because it’s too bellicose; he might salute if the anthem were “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”!  Obama is a Muslim racist who wants to complete the jihad against America!  He fits the Book of Revelations’ description of the Anti-Christ!  His goal as President is to create a strong government so that wealth can be distributed more equitably!  Michelle Obama called room service at the Waldorf Astoria and gorged herself on expensive food!  Michelle Obama has more staff members working for her than any other first lady in history!  Obama blew off the troops in a visit to Afghanistan, and made law enforcement personnel stay out of sight during a public appearance!  Obama desecrated the Oval Office by putting his feet on the desk!  Barack and Michelle Obama had to surrender their law licenses under suspicious circumstances!  Michelle Obama has a fat ass!

    Yeah, you’re right.  The left is completely, absolutely, 100% hypocritical when they say you righties are vitriolic.

    1. They’re hypocritical when they scold, and try to place the blame for an idiot madman on a pundit for printing a map, then, saying things far worse, 8 months later.

      And it’s not some basement-dwelling idiot posting stupid shit on the internet off of Snopes.  it’s the idiot White-House-dwelling Vice President, and other politicians and high profile Democratic columnists going far, far, off the deep end.

      And the reason they are, IMO, is that their policies have failed when exposed to reality, and the majority of the country.  

      1. if you can find quotes from the people you quote (specifically E. J. Dionne, Joe Nocera, Maureen Dowd, and VP Joseph Biden) calling for civility in debate.

        I know that, for some weird reason, conservatives tend to see things in terms of “teams,” and since you guys are all part of a “team,” you all kinda take ownership for everything people on your side do and say, or beat a guy down when he strays off the reservation. Not so with the left. We’re more of a coalition, and if someone says something stupid, that person owns it all by her- or himself.

        1. Here is E.J. Dionne from January 10th:

          [Emphasis mine]

          Let’s begin by being honest. It is not partisan to observe that there are cycles to violent rhetoric in our politics. In the late 1960s, violent talk (and sometimes violence itself) was more common on the far left. But since President Obama’s election, it is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing “tyranny.”

          It is Obama’s opponents who carried guns to his speeches and cited Jefferson’s line that the tree of liberty “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

          It was Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, who spoke of “Second Amendment remedies.” And, yes, it was Palin who put those gun sights over the districts of the Democrats she was trying to defeat, including Giffords.

          The point is not to “blame” American conservatism for the actions of a possibly deranged man, especially since the views of Jared Lee Loughner seem so thoroughly confused. But we must now insist with more force than ever that threats of violence no less than violence itself are antithetical to democracy. Violent talk and playacting cannot be part of our political routine. It is not cute or amusing to put crosshairs over a congressional district.

          Liberals were rightly pressed in the 1960s to condemn violence on the left. Now, conservative leaders must take on their fringe when it uses language that intimates threats of bloodshed. That means more than just highly general statements praising civility.

          1. Now, going back to your original post, the “violent” quote attributed to Dionne was that he accused the T.P. of wanting to “blow up our government.”

            Do you, in all honesty, think that this is violent rhetoric?

            I don’t, for two reasons. One, it’s clear he was speaking figuratively; which is hard to say about statements like the infamous “Second Amendment remedies” from Sharron Angle. Two, he’s speaking about what the other side wants to do, as opposed for calling his side to specific action (as Angle could be viewed as doing with her statement).

            So, pending your answer, I’d have to say that Berkowitz misrepresented Dionne’s remarks. (The other examples were more inflammatory, to be sure.)

  7. It’s not a unique visitors counter, just a page views counter, so you can also tell how many of us “angry progressives” visit repeatedly to seethe without commenting.

    Enjoy.

  8. Does this help your inferiority complex? hehe

    Question: Seriously, ellbee, how does an opinion column and a diary using over-the-top language, strawman arguments, and rhetorical questions, contribute to, or even usefully criticize, the current polarized debate(s)?

    Answer: It doesn’t.

    As for opinions, if they contradict the evidence they really are not worthy of respect. You and others are welcome to hold any fantastic opinion that you’d like. But, if there is evidence that the real reality is in conflict with the imagined “reality” of an opinion, I’ll tender my respect to the real version of reality.

    1. Be specific, then, if my diary is so obvious.

      Show me how this:

      And not just contempt, but even disgust at diversity of opinion, which from the progressive’s perspective distracts the people from the policies demanded by impartial reason.

      isn’t true.

      1. Yep, Democrats are notoriously intolerant of diversity.  Ya really nailed us on that one!

        Oh wait, perhaps it’s not the diversity or range of opinions that draw our contempt, maybe it’s the fallacious arguments supporting the opinion itself!

        Oh by the way, it’s official.  Rich Guy is done with the Tea Party.  Purpose served, tax breaks assured for the forseeable future.  But now that the Tea Party has started to threaten their assets, time to flush the TP’ers like, well, used TP.

        This week’s TIME magazine was an unending stream of articles explaining why THERE ARE NUCKING FUTS ON THE LOOSE!

        I’d post some of the better quotes, but it’s all behind their paywall.  Great reading.  I’ll manually type one brief quote from Joe Klein:

        It’s time for Boehner to sequester the Tea Partyers in a rubber-padded romper room, and let the adults pass the deal that both he and the vast majority of Americans want.  

        (but apparently not you)

        Now that the MSM is picking up the meme, look for the pendulum swing back to compromise and deal-making to keep the wheels of the economy from falling off.

        Paraphrasing from the articles:  Where filibusters used to be once-in-a-decade actions, now 80% of legislation has been subject to a GOP filibuster.  Never before has the threat of not raising the debt limit been used to extract massive policy concessions.

        If every budget bill or Senate confirmation becomes an endless parade of hostage situations – the budget vote for September, the FAA again in September, hundreds of unfilled top-level administration positions, and so on, it won’t be Obama and the Democrats getting the blame for intransigence.

        The extreme tolerance of the MSM for modern “conservative” policies will come to a screeching halt. With endless supplies of ink and electrons, the bad press will land on top of the GOP for 2012.  You really don’t want to piss off the money guys.  They always get what they want, and they’ve gotten it.  Threaten them at your own peril.

        1. Not intolerant of diversity, but exactly as my quote says, diversity of opinion.  And it’s true.  

          Here’s the entire paragraph again:

          Add to this the progressive belief that human beings can be perfected through the rule of experts, and you have a recipe-when the people make choices contrary to progressive dictates-for generating contempt among the experts for the people whose interests they claim to alone represent. And not just contempt, but even disgust at diversity of opinion, which from the progressive’s perspective distracts the people from the policies demanded by impartial reason.

          Berkowitz’ point is that there are plenty of “simple” people in this country and the world who believe to the bottom of their hearts that their lives are not made better by the analysis and implementation of the “progressive” belief system from above, and the fact that they have the sheer gaul, and now a tiny piece of government capable of stopping it is the cause of the recent fury coming from the left.

          I saw the same condescending moralizing and preaching coming from Obama, Reid, Durbin, et al about how wretched it would be to vote to raise the debt ceiling in 2006, and they voted against it.  How do they really feel?  Which is really the moral path?

          This next part is an honest explanation of what I see having happened.  I’m not trying to be a smart ass, and I’m not trying to offend you:

          Folks on my side of the aisle were so horrified at what the Dems did, so quickly, without contemplation (Stimulus, ACA, budget) that we motivated and did whatever we could to stop it, see: 2010 election.  After increasing spending and debt to the levels they did, the House R’s that swept to power were sent there with a mandate – they would not be the bag men – the tax men for the Democrats’ spending.  It’s that simple.  

          Keep in mind that I can also see and respect how the Dems would feel the same about stopping Republican spending on things they don’t agree with.

          The problem is, we are up shit creek financially, from spending from both parties, and we absolutely have to reform our entitlements.  Your side believes that we can do that just by taxing the less than half of the populace that pay federal taxes even more, and my side doesn’t.

          It’s like cat people and dog people.  I, with every fiber of my being and my understanding of what this country is about, don’t view tax breaks as a line item “expense” to government, and my guess is that you do.  I’m not going to insult you for it, I just don’t understand how you feel that way.

          So, what to do?

          1. Nobody understands how you think that tax cuts create economic prosperity. Just look at the last decade plus and see what historically low tax rates combined with outrageous spending (the majority of which was passed in conjunction with those very tax rates.) You think we can cut our way to prosperity, AND keep those cuts permanent. Hence, my comment that you responded to with a link to this diary: enacting the economic policies Republicans are proposing don’t do a damn thing for unemployment because they have already been enacted by George Bush and largely continued by Barack Obama.

            The cosmic ballet… goes on.

          2. Thanks for that very thoughtful reply.  We definitely will disagree, but you expressed your opinions very clearly and constructively.  I appreciate that very much.

            BTW, Berkowitz’ statement of opinion is neither true nor false.  You can only accept/agree or reject/disagree, based on whatever supporting facts there may be.  I don’t see any of those in your post, and I definitely reject his broad stereotypes about progressives.

            What to do?  It will take compromise, not ultimatums or tantrums from either side.

            Some facts from the aforementioned TIME articles:

            Currently, revenue is at the historical low of 15% of GDP.  Spending is 24%.  Under Reagan, revenue was 18% of GDP, and spending averaged 22.4%, up from the average between 1971-2009 of 20.6%. I will grant you 24% is not sustainable.  The solution is a combination of growing the GDP (lowering the relative percent of spending) and targeted cuts, as every agrees (but obviously disagree on whose sacred cow gets gored).  That’s why we need to elect representatives that want to govern, not just throw bombs.

            Cutting government spending to 15% now or probably ever, is not realistic (except to Grover Norquist).  Therefore to balance the budget now or ever will involve tax increases.

            But due to the Tea Party’s little gambit, according to TIME:

            We have taken our most precious resource, the trust of the world, and gambled with it.  If, as a result fo these congressional antics, interest rates on America’s debt rise by 1% — in other words, if the world asks for just a little bit more interest to lend us money — the budget deficit will rise by $1.3 trillion over 10 years.  That would more than wipe out the entire 10 years of cuts proposed in the debt deal.  That’s the American system at work these days.

            So unless we start working together to solve our problems, we will neither be able to cut nor tax our way to prosperity.

              2. The stimulus was actually $787 (some say just over $800 billion), but lets use your $900 billion figure.

                According to this study, without the stimulus, the New Depression would have taken 6.5% right off the top of the economy.  6.5% of $14 trillion comes out to $910 billion.  That doesn’t even include the cost of dealing with 8.5 million additional unemployed (for a total of 16.5 million).

                With the magic of compounding, that ROI just keeps growing each year we didn’t have a Depression.  

                Something your gold bullion holdings won’t do.

      2. what that sentence means, so I have no idea if it could even be “true.”

        Furthermore, I’m not aware of any policy that has been developed or implemented through “impartial reason” alone. So, if I am going to direct my contempt at anyone, it will be those that traffic in strawman arguments and false dichotomies.

        1. I could post things that come up on the skeptic side of the AGW equation, to ask your opinion of them, without you thinking that I’m posting them to say ‘see!  I told you it was bullshit!’?

          That would be helpful to me.

          (This is totally unrelated to my diary or your response to it).

          1. If you start out a post with something like “I’d like to understand this better …” and I can start out my posts with something like “to the best of my understanding …”

            Then we’ll both know that the other is sincere and not trying to BS or be sarcastic. (of course, the reverse can be used when we are encroaching on fields where the expertise is in your court)

            Of course, I always forget codes and passwords, so feel free to electronically slap me if I respond inappropriately to a sincere post from you.

            1. I was sincere, but I don’t blame you for having the “Snark Shield” up with me.  Sometimes, I am a giant asshole.

              I was going to ask you about Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing, which I think is supposed to be peer reviewed.

              I’m not going to quote or link to anything editorial about it, and I read though the paper, which was over my head except for select passages.  But I believe his premise is that the earth is releasing more heat than previously modeled.

              Do you think it’s a credible paper, and does it (in your opinion) need to change anything modeled for AGW and its consequences?

              1. Before I get to “the best of my understanding” (which is not much) I’ll mention what I don’t know.

                I don’t know anything about the reputation of “Remote Sensing” and I don’t know how rigorous its peer review is. This is not to denigrate either, just an admission of guilt. (BTW, I am not a climate scientist, I am an ecologist who chooses to incorporate climate as one of the factors of interest when trying to understand plant distributions.)

                Here is something else I don’t understand: climate models. My college-level calculus is very rusty and the state of the art in climate models is way beyond my understanding (indeed, many ecological models in use now are beyond my capability of really understanding).

                But, a rule of thumb I operate under is that if I can understand a mathematical model, then it is way way way too simple to accurately reflect the real world.

                Spencer’s model is tooo simple.

                [Aside: I and other ecologists still teach very simple ecological models (often derived from economics models) to undergraduate students. We do this not because the models are useful in describing patterns in the real world but because it is possible to point out flaws in these models when compared to the real world and then point out the necessity of adding more factors and complexity. Occam’s razor does not say that simple is true, rather is claims that simple should be preferred unless one has evidence that complexity does a better job of explaining the real world. We have long had this evidence in regards to climate.]

                Modern science papers, whether based on experimental evidence or modelling, take great pains to show the RANGE of variation observed in the results and quantify the amount of uncertainty in the data. I may have missed it in my quick read, but I did not pick up any quantified uncertainty in this Spencer paper. This makes me suspicious.

                Another thing that makes me suspicious about the rigor of this work is the style of writing. The author uses a number of phrases that I have to correct out of undergraduates who are struggling to write concisely and don’t have confidence in their abilities. I know Spencer is quite experienced as a scientist, so this paper reads like a draft that should have received heavy criticism from good peer-review and editorial services.

                There is no good reason for why a reputable science journal in 2011 should accept and publish a paper using such simple models when it has repeatedly been demonstrated that more complex models are needed.

                For example, one of the “skeptics'” arguments for flaws in the current state of the art climate models is that they haven’t realistically accounted for clouds. My understanding is that this is a reasonable criticism. But in this paper, Spencer does much worse. He fails to develop a reasonable ocean and fails to account for known phenomena such as El Nino. These are such basic things that any current research into climate ought to include them. Leaving them out may be a useful heuristic for an introductory climate course, but such a model provides no new information to drive scientific understanding forward.

                Also, in one review (below) of this paper it has been shown that completely opposite assumptions are also compatible with Spencer’s model. In other words, this simple model does not distinguish between incompatible assumptions and thus provides us with no new information about the world.

                Here are a couple of reviews that I found understandable:

                Spencer’s Misdiagnosis

                Put the Model Down

                Here’s another review that I haven’t yet read:

                No Silver Bullets

                As as a bit of pre-emption, here is a review of a different “modelling” paper that takes a similar approach to Spencer. The reviewers take great effort to show some of the steps that must be taken to evaluate the efficacy of a model. Steps that more than one “skeptic” has overlooked.

                Curve Fitting Games

                So, given my limited understanding, I would say this new paper from Spencer contributes little to nothing to our understanding of climate. But again, most of this stuff is way beyond me — I do not claim to be an expert on climate science and I know for certain that I do not know enough to claim that the consensus of the actual experts is wrong.

                If Spencer’s simple model was sufficient to throw the consensus into doubt, it would have been published in one of the top science journals. Really. I know from experience that there is no conspiracy to keep out inconvenient results.

                1. Thanks so much.  I’m going to take the next couple of days and read your links.

                  Please assume that from now on you will never get a snarky reply from me, unless I’m sure you’re in on the joke as well.

                  I have immense respect for you.  Thanks again.

                  1. I was just reading up on this stuff…

                    You won’t like the reference: Trenberth and Fasullo, but they pretty well dismantle Spencer and Braswell:

                    http://www.realclimate.org/ind…

                    In a nutshell, they’re testing a climate response caused by ENSO (El Nino / Southern Oscillation) using a model that can’t simulate ENSO (because the ocean is treated too simplistically). S&B then proclaim that all models cannot replicate the climate response. However, T&F show that good models do, in fact, properly model the response, within the error bars.

                    The journal Remote Sensing was an odd choice for publication and it appears that the editors chose peers who weren’t savvy to climate models.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

77 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!