Archive: Wisconsin Protests 2011

I may be a bit late in coming but given my first-hand knowledge of the situation, I thought I should finally commit my thoughts on the Badger State Brouhaha to words. It's just taken me a while to figure out exactly what to say and focus on, since there's so much to write about and so much has been said already. Given that, I think there are a few things worth mentioning, and a proverbial 800-pound gorilla that no one seems to be talking about - the effects of the national defense budget on state government shortfalls.

First, I have never been a conspiracy theorist, but the more I witness the current behavior of the Tea Party crowd, the more I am convinced that this campaign is a concentrated effort on the part of rich conservatives to pit the middle and working classes against each other, so that they might push through policies they want while the rest of us are haggling over who's getting the bigger shaft. The policies and spending cuts contained in the Wisconsin state budget pit working class against middle class, public sector vs. private, union vs. non-union, etc. Meanwhile, if you are a wealthy businessman who can easily afford good health insurance and to send your kids to elite private schools, you make out like a bandit. Instead of those who are most able to contribute to the dire financial situation being asked to pitch in a little more, it's time to go after teachers et al, those "part time fat cats" who dare to make as much as $50,000/year on average in Wisconsin. Unbelievably, many who have drank the Tea Party tea readily accept that is in in their best interest (many who make less than teachers) to support the interest of millionaires at the expense of teachers and public safety workers.

Granted, the climate is ripe for such class warfare. Average wages for private-sector employees have not really risen over the past 30 years, even as many households are supported by two (or more) incomes. Meanwhile, public sector wages, due to laws and statutes governing them, have risen with inflation and largely continue to offer good benefits. You won't get rich working for the government, like you might in the private sector, but you'll have a secure job with decent pay and nice fringe benefits. The Tea Party has seized on this disparity in order to get the private working class to despite the public middle class and try to pull them down to their level in a potentially catastrophic race to the bottom of American wages.

There are two reasons for the relative decline in private sector wages that connect to the relative stability of public sector wages. First, the traditional view of the labor market no longer applies. With the globalization of the labor force, workers are never in scarce supply, and thus are not in a position to demand better working conditions and higher wages - not when your job can be outsourced to India, China, Mexico, etc. for a fraction of the cost. Conversely, and fortunately for public workers, their jobs are somewhat outsourcing-proof. I fear for the day when our kids are taught by a teacher on a TV screen being beamed in from Mumbai.

Second, in the early and middle parts of the 20th century, private sector unions helped workers get good-paying jobs that would set them up to be financially secure for life. Now, I would not claim that unions are perfect and have never caused any problems, but that's beyond the scope of this post. The point is, those private labor unions began to be dismantled at about the same time the labor force was globalized - suddenly labor had no bargaining power, and the unions were no longer there to exercise power on their behalf either. Compare that to the public sector, where unions are relatively newer but still around in many parts of the country and powerful lobbiers of government.

So while it is true that public workers are generally better off than private workers nowadays, why does that mean it's time to punish them while leaving the wealthy untouched? Public workers are highly trained professionals who will never get rich in their positions, and in some cases put their lives on the line to serve others. They deserve a decent way of life. Hurting them will hurt everyone else, but especially those who depend on their servicNes - for example, public schools. If a highly qualified teacher has a decision of working at an under-resourced public school or making a great deal more at a neighboring private school, it becomes easy to understand why sometimes it seems lousy teachers have pervaded our public schools. A lot of the good ones, besides some truly dedicated souls, have sought greener pastures elsewhere.

So, if we acknowledge that public sector workers deserve a decent living, how do we repair the government deficits that are sweeping the country like the latest YouTube meme? Now's the time to talk about apes. Many state budget problems can be traced back to the federal government, which has reduced funding for many programs while passing on other unfunded mandates (some argue No Child Left Behind is such). Meanwhile, no one would ever think of reducing the size of the federal defense budget, which is about a third of the national total. The figure stands at about $670 billion annually, and that does not include VA costs, intelligence, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are approved separately as budget supplements. Just think of what trimming that budget just by $100 billion could do for schools, infrastructure, and small businesses across the country (by comparison, the total all-funds Wisconsin budget is about $30 billion annually). But no one wants to say cut defense because that looks unpatriotic or that we aren't supporting the troops. Well I hate to say it, but perhaps it is time we acknowledge that the U.S. is no longer in the position of global hegemony that it was in as recently as 15 years ago, and that it might be time to reevaluate our national priorities accordingly. If we continue to insist on projecting a global military presence with a defense budget that is many times that of many other military powers combined, we may end up spending ourselves into ruin - sort of the strategy the U.S. employed against the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. With that in mind, I believe a scaling back is in order - let's spend some of that money on schools and roads instead of the latest in military tech. Yes, I realize that shrinking our defense budget might have some negative effects on some sectors of the economy - but putting that money back into areas where everyone can benefit might be the best way, in the long-term, to keep America competitive in the global economy of the 21st century.

Drones Strike Above Partisan Politics

To many, the "laws of war" sounds like an oxymoron.  How can there be laws that regulate how, when, why, and where countries can legally kill people from other countries (or their own at times), and how can it be that oftentimes countries actually agree to and actually follow such laws?  It's a valid question, and this is a very complex issue, one that I've studied both at the undergraduate and graduate level.  It's interesting both for the practical policy implications and the underlying theory of what constitutes a "just war."  Since the beginning of the "war on terror" and the realization that most future wars will likely not be simple country vs. country conflicts (at least not until some major shakeup in the current order of nation-states), the laws of war have become murkier and murkier.  And the latest issue to draw heated attention both at home and abroad is the U.S. use of unmanned aerial combat vehicles, or drones.

Meet Mr. Drone.

Drones are the unmanned "hit men" of the armed forces and CIA.  They enable the targeted killing of high-value targets without placing soldiers on your side at risk, while hopefully minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians.  From a purely military standpoint, then, their usefulness is obvious. The Obama administration has used them extensively in the ongoing fight against terrorism, including the targeted killing of at least one U.S. citizen.  From a legal and ethical standpoint, however, there are many valid questions to be asked.  Do drone strikes respond to terrorism as a crime or an act of war?  When are targeted killings justified in either case?  Does the government have the right to carry these killing out without a trial, even on American citizens?  Who qualifies as an appropriate target?

These questions require input and analysis from international law scholars, which I am not.  So I'm not going to try to answer them, nor offer a whole-hearted endorsement of the Obama administration's drone policy.  Rather, I want to point out that this is an issue that transcends American party politics.  Its roots actually reach far back in American history.

Beloved president, sort of a dictator. 

Presidents have almost always tried to extend their powers during wartime.  During a kerfuffle with Napoleonic France, John Adams and the Federalists rammed the Alien and Sedition Acts through Congress, which severely limited the right of free speech.  These were thankfully repealed later.  The first great expansion of executive wartime power came under the man who most Americans regard as the greatest president - Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln curtailed the right to a trial in Maryland, a slave state that remained in the Union and harbored many Southern sympathizers, including one John Wilkes Booth.  Moreover, since Lincoln never recognized the Confederacy as a separate country, all acts committed by the Union military against the South were acts of war inflicted upon, in Lincoln's eyes, fellow Americans.  And such were certainly not limited to military targets - just think of Sherman's "war is hell" march of destruction from Atlanta to Savannah.  Fortunately, in one of his last great acts, Lincoln relinquished such powers at the end of the war.  Unfortunately, this did not set a precedent for future presidents.

The executive power grab on matters of national security really came to the fore during the Cold War.  Remember, the last time Congress officially declared war was in 1941.  Every military intervention since that point has been at the prerogative of the executive - Korea, Vietnam, that war's expansion into Laos and Cambodia, Desert Storm, etc.  Congress, which of course has the power of the purse, has often been cowed into compliance with cries of "Why won't you support the troops??" and insinuations of unpatriotism.  Perhaps the most egregious example was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, which broadly authorized the LBJ administration to use military force in Southeast Asia in response to two minor incidents with North Vietnam, one of which was later proven not to have occurred.  Each success by a president to single-handedly dictate foreign policy has emboldened his successors of either party.  Congress tried to get a rein on this trend in 1973 with the War Powers Resolution.  Passed by an un-vetoable two-thirds majority, it declares that the president cannot commit military forces to action without Congressional approval, unless under an emergency.  Every president since its passage has declared the resolution unconstitutional and ignored it.

Additionally, drones are really just the latest technology enabling a practice, targeted killing, that the U.S. has engaged in many times throughout its history - if perhaps a bit messier.  Or, if short of killing, at least the deposition of people the executive didn't care for at the time.  Examples: overthrow of the democratically-elected Iran government in 1953, attempted Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Castro, and the CIA's support for Pinochet's coup over an elected president and his subsequent military dictatorship in Chile.  Targeted killings with drones are pretty easy to imagine as  a logical progression of these policies in response to a different threat (terrorists replacing Communist-leading leaders).

That brings us to 2001 and the beginnings of the war on terror.  That term itself is legally problematic - who is the war against?  How do we fight such a war?  What are the win conditions?  When will we know it's over?  Nevertheless, in the uber-patriotic, ass-kicking fervor that followed 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) by votes of 420-1 (House) and 98-0 (Senate).  The AUMF authorizes the president to “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for the 9/11 attacks - not limited to Afghanistan.  It is this joint resolution that forms the basis of the Obama administration's legal justification for drone strikes, adding that since a state of war exists between the U.S. and al Qaida, the Taliban, and "associated forces" (awfully broad), drones are perfectly in line with our inherent right to self-defense.  Which really just raises more questions - can we be at war with a non-state entity?  What are the conditions for such?  And how closely is a remote strike tied to the right to respond to an imminent threat?

That's where we stand today.  Hopefully I've made it clear that this is far from an "Obama-only" issue.  Some conservatives are trying to portray it as such, claiming hypocrisy for Democrats refusing to question Obama's foreign policy.  Well, if they paid attention to lefty thought circles they would know that many progressives have been very critical of drones.  Some refused to support him in the last election because of it.  I'm glad those high-minded idealists exist; they can be vital in drawing attention to important issues.  However, more pragmatic progressives, myself included, decided that it was better to support the candidate you agree with most of the time and who has a chance at winning.  After the election, you can (and rightfully should) hold his feet to the fire as much as you want.  Some seem to have this idea that if you support Candidate X you must agree with everything he or she says and does.  Not true.  There is certainly room for intra-party discourse and disagreement, though that's something that the overly rigid modern GOP often seems to disallow.  Moreover, if you think Romney would have ended the drone strike policy, hopefully the history I've outlined above shows you are most likely mistaken.

Congress, then, really needs to seize the initiative if it wants to limit executive power abuses on national security.  Its recent track record on this is less than stellar.  While it's become painfully clear that the Bush administration orchestrated the Iraq War through misinformation, outright lies, and the constant accusations of un-Americanism at potential opponents, Congress nonetheless authorized the use of force in Iraq through a vote that included prominent Democrats such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.  They certainly could have done a better job questioning the shoddy evidence the Bush administration was presenting.  Interestingly, some of the most probing and insightful questions about drones right now are coming from Senator Rand Paul (undoubtedly influenced by his dad Ron).  However, on every other issue I think he is kind of insane.  Like I said, it's complicated.

Drones, therefore, are not a partisan issue.  It is a question of restoring the balance of power between an increasingly polarized and timid Congress and the corresponding rise of the Imperial Presidency.  However, both parties are held back from publicly expressing concerns above the policies of their own president, out of fear of possible political consequences. Therefore, it may fall to the media and regular citizens to be the harbingers of change.  The media certainly has its own set of problems - its complicity and often outright giddiness in the march towards the Iraq War was shameful.  So that leaves us.  If drones bother you, write your Congressman.  Petition the White House.  Organize an online group or protest.  It's an issue that needs to be addressed, because the day may come when terrorists have their own drones to use against us.  If that happens, it would be nice to say to the world that we have established a sound, restricted policy that enables us to take the moral high ground.  To tweak the Golden Rule, "do unto others only as much as you would have done unto you."

P.S. I've been known to rail against the false equivalency of "both sides do it!," which is the reactionary cry from conservatives and centrists whenever the Right is caught in a screwup.  Here, however, we have a case study that is demonstrably proven by history as it is mostly based, as I've shown, on a legislative vs. executive power conflict rather than one of pure ideology.

Sure, Let's Talk About Rubio's Content

The GOP savior du jour.  I mean, del dia.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida was dubbed the "Republican Savior" by Time magazine.  Here, after all, is a Latino Republican who can reach beyond the party's Anglo base and attract new voters.  He's already being hyped as a 2016 presidential contender, and it's no surprise that he was chosen to give the "official" GOP response to the State of the Union address (Senator Rand Paul sort-of defected and delivered the Tea Party response, giving us perhaps the strongest indication yet that things aren't so rosy in elephant-land).  So when Rubio took the Swig Heard Round the World, Twitter exploded with mockery and liberals had a good laugh.  Cue Republican outrage about refusing to discuss the content of Rubio's speech.  Well, fine, I'm game.  It was the same old crap, so it's really not that hard.

But first, the water bottle incident is worth briefly discussing.  Yeah, it's pretty dumb and doesn't disqualify him to be president or anything.  But like it or not, image is important in politics.  It's been important on a mass scale since Nixon stood next to JFK in 1960, and the explosion of social media means public responses to how politicians present themselves are now instantaneous and create a first impression that impacts any meaningful discussion of policy content.  That's just reality.  And Rubio's entire presentation showed that the GOP has apparently learned nothing since the mess of the Republican National Convention.  The lighting was weird and the set was overdone and kinda cheesy.  And then the water.  If you gotta take a drink, fine.  But if it's apparent that thirst may be an issue, why didn't anyone think to have it in a glass at easily reachable height?  Instead you had Rubio doing calisthenics to bend down and reach a tacky plastic water bottle.  Nobody thought of that?  As a result, for apolitical people, the biggest speech in Rubio's career will only be remembered for a big slobbery moment of fail.  That's not good.  It seriously impedes whatever message he was trying to deliver.  Moreover, Republicans certainly never miss an opportunity to pile on Democrat image-gaffes - Michael Dukakis in a tank, Al Gore sighing, Howard Dean screaming, John Kerry eating a cheesesteak, Barack Obama's debate boredom - the list goes on.

But let's move on to Rubio's message.  Essentially, it was the same BS GOP talking points that Romney and Ryan tried to use last year - and we saw where that got them.  Apparently they really believe having an "ethnic" face deliver the same drivel will make a difference.  It was the sort of "government bad" generics, lacking in any evidence or much details, that a bad high school debater might have offered.  He responded to very little of what Obama actually said.  Now, I understand the speech has to be prepared in advance, but Rubio and his staff should have received an advance copy of at least part of the speech and had an hour-long State of the Union and several minutes thereafter during which to tweak and adjust his response accordingly.  It's called extemporaneous speaking, and if I could do it in high school forensics, you would think a U.S. Senator should be able to.  But apparently in their thought-bubble hive mind they just know what Obama is going to say, so they don't need to listen.  As a result he beat up on the same Straw Man Obama that Republicans have been hating on for the past five years.  Fortunately, it appears that more and more Americans are realizing that the un-American, Socialist, totalitarian Obama that the GOP loves to portray doesn't actually exist.

That was the general theme; it's not worth plodding through the whole thing, but here are a few choice excerpts and my reaction:

"This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies."

This is a regurgitation of the conservative assertion that government lending agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the housing crisis.  Of course, never mind that the idea's been debunked by pretty much every economist who's cared to look at it, and it's common knowledge that risky lending by private lenders was a huge cause of the housing bubble bursting.  But to Rubio and his ilk, government must be a problem, liberals must always want more of it, and any data that shows otherwise is either ignorable or faked.

"Mr. President, I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare."

Guess what?  Turns out Rubio is trying to sell his house in that working-class Miami neighborhood...for $675,000.  Apparently this fits the Republican definition of "working class."  To be fair, though, it appears that Rubio and about five neighbors live in a ritzy cul-de-sac ostentatiously plopped down in the middle of what might be an actual middle-class area.  Which, of course, Rubio seemingly wants to escape as soon as possible.

"And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."

Um, nope.  See: Great Depression, Social Security, interstate highway system and other internal improvements, mass public education, GI Bill, federal student loans, investment in research and technology, Medicare, etc etc etc.  It's worked a lot more often than "NO GUVMINT EVAR."

"When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air."

Senator Rubio, please point to the transcript of President Obama saying Republicans want dirty water and air.  I can gladly point to many people in your party saying much worse things about him.  On climate change, he makes the same tired fallacy of conflating weather and climate (not to mention controlling the weather is not the same as controlling pollution).  There are plenty of market-based ideas to combat climate change, like cap-and-trade systems, that many Republicans once supported.  Then they got hijacked by the John Birch Society.

"Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration."

Man, I can't stand the religious self-righteousness of "God gave us all this cool stuff to exploit."  Well, maybe God wanted us to be good stewards of the planet too, and try to find sources of energy that won't run out in a hundred years while destroying our environment.

Ugh, it goes on and on.  He praises certain government programs and acknowledges he needed loans to go to college and that his parents have depended on Medicare.  He claims not to want to change these programs in a way that would harm people that need it (now, that is - future generations are out of luck), but he also supports a balanced budget amendment - which would devastate these and other programs, no way around it.  It's just the underlying message of "I got mine, now screw you" that offends me so much.  If Rubio is the best "savior" the Republicans have to offer, they might have more dark days ahead.

Ted Nugent: Asshole at the SotU

Take your racist flag shirt and please stay home.

Pardon my French, but call a spade a spade.  And it's mild compared to what's to come (you've been warned).  Texas Representative Steve Stockman (R-Of Course) has invited the Motor City Madman himself, Ted Nugent, to attend the State of the Union speech tomorrow night.  Stockman's spokesman said Nugent would be a "good representative" of American values.  Actually, the ultra-conservative Nugent has a long, long history of inflammatory remarks about liberals, blacks, women, gays, Muslims, you name it.  Well, it's free speech.  It's his right.  But that doesn't mean we should reward it.  But to Stockman, apparently the Nuge deserves a place of honor at what is supposed to be one of DC's more dignified annual events.  So let's take a look at some of Ted's "greatest hits" and ponder whether maybe, just maybe, there might be someone more deserving that Stockman could have invited.  (The more complete guide is here, I've sorted through to pick out my "favorites.")

On President Obama: "He hangs out with, hires and appoints communists. He is an evil dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom."  Also, "I was in Chicago and said, "Hey, Obama you might want to suck on one of these you punk. Obama, he's a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun."

On Obama supporters: "Pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters hav [sic] a president to destroy America."

Other racism:

NUGENT: I don't have to. You know what I'm on top of? I'm on top of a real America with working hard, playing hard, white motherfucking shit kickers, who are independent and get up in the morning.
MACK: Aren't there any blacks?
NUGENT: Show me one. Show me one.
MACK: There's plenty of them.
NUGENT: Show me one.

"MTV is a liberal lump of hippy snot. They are embarrassing. Those big uneducated greasy black mongrels on there, they call themselves rap artists."

Sexism:

"And then I was in New York. I said, "Hey, Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch. Since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer, she might want to suck on my machine gun. And Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore."

A feminist is "some fat pig who doesn't get it often enough."

On Hillary Clinton: "You probably can't use the term `toxic cunt' in your magazine, but that's what she is. Her very existence insults the spirit of individualism in this country. This bitch is nothing but a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro."

Homophobia:

"If the NBA had any true gay convictions, the NBA should host a Homosexual Night. During halftime, the homosexuals could come down on the court, hold hands and prance around the court to music by the Village People"

"I got to tell you, guys that have sex with each other's anal cavities -- how can we offend guys that actually have anal sex? Don't you think that might offend some of us who think that's despicable?"

Immigrant bashing:

While performing as the opening act for KISS at a concert April 1, Nugent launched into a profanity-laced tirade instructing those who cannot speak English to return to their native countries. He made similar comments at a concert in San Antonio a day earlier.

Conservative gun owners, here is your "good representative."  He is on the board of the NRA.  Is this who you want representing you?  Do you get why many people find it difficult to understand your side of the debate when Nugent is the loudest gun owner in the country?  But instead of shunning him, you have a duly elected member of Congress inviting him to the State of the Union address.  Where's my invitation?  I mean, the bar to get one has been lowered beyond belief.

Empathy for the Stranger

(Disclaimer: By its nature, in this post I make some generalizations.  By no means do I intend to say that all conservatives are this way.  However, I do believe there is a trend worth examining, and this is based on my experiences in person and online, what conservatives say and do in the media, and opinion polls.)

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'" - Matthew 25:34-36

Talk about timing.  I had already composed the following post when this showed up on my Facebook feed:

The numbers appear fairly accurate, if awfully simplistic (well, I don't know about the "crack heads").  So it's not the numbers I take issue with, but rather the attitude.  The idea of 42 million Americans being "unemployable" is crazy and insulting.  It would mean we have an unemployment rate of around 30%, depending on how you measure it.  Also, the average SNAP (food stamps) monthly benefit is about $140, hardly enough for an "unemployable" person to live on.  If you're talking about TANF (i.e. welfare), the actual number of recipients is around 4.5 million.  And then there's the implication that undocumented immigrants are just here to be leeches.  It's all offensive, and the exact message that I try to counter below.

Almost all of the conservatives I know are good people.  They work hard, have fun, take care of their families, and participate in their communities in various ways.  Many of them would go out of their way to help someone in need.  Under certain circumstances they'll aid strangers - by supporting our soldiers and veterans, giving to a charity they approve of, or opening their hears and wallets after a tragedy like 9/11 or Sandy Hook.  However, when it comes to contributing to a government program that will aid someone less fortunate whom they are not directly or indirectly acquainted with, they respond with disgust.  Why should they help a moocher or a freeloader?  Why does their problem obligate them to do something?  How do they know their contribution won't be wasted?  Overcoming these obstacles, getting people to look past their communities and see the worthiness of investing in a broader civil society is one of my main goals as a prairie progressive.

A short anecdote before I continue.  I know someone who lives in a small Kansas town.  This person's son had to have an operation.  I'm not aware of all the details, but I do know that the elementary school community came together to help pay the medical costs.  This same person has posted anti-Obamacare memes on Facebook.

What the community did for the boy was fantastic and commendable.  I'd expect no less from the good people of small-town Kansas.  But here's the rub - not everyone is fortunate enough to have such a strong support network available when times are tough.  Everyone deserves appropriate medical care, but not everyone can afford it or receive the charity of a caring community.  This is where a government that doesn't care who you are or what your situation is can step in to help.  It might be the only institution powerful and far-reaching enough to effectively render aid to those who need it most.  This is why I believe it makes sense for everyone to contribute to a universal health care system, like every other advanced country on Earth.  The Obamacare-basher wouldn't need to worry about community support under universal health care.

Conservatives take care of their own, but it seems that they often display a lack of concern or empathy for the "other," which is often based on preconceived notions or stereotypes.  You can trace this common thread across the spectrum of political issues.  Recipients of welfare and other government aid are lazy and don't want to work; the jobs are out there if they just try.  Of course, no one they know is part of the infamous 47% moocher class; they can vouch for all of them.  Undocumented immigrants don't work hard and are a drain on the system; why don't they come here legally if they want to be here so bad?  Gun violence is a problem for urban blacks and the sporadic nutcase, why should they care if some gangbangers wanna shoot each other up?  Gays and lesbians don't need special treatment or marriage equality because they're not really a separate class of people.  If Muslims face discrimination and increased scrutiny, well, their kind shouldn't have attacked us on 9/11.  And a woman facing the challenge of an unwanted pregnancy shouldn't have put herself in that position to begin with.

I'm certainly not going to tackle all these issues in this post.  But the common theme is that sometimes we have to concern ourselves with the needs of strangers for the good of everyone. That can be a tough pill to swallow at times, but in the long run everyone will be better off.  It's one of the foundations of the social contract people make when they abandon anarchy in favor of an organized government.  You may abandon a bit of personal freedom (and money), but in exchange you get an institution that takes care of things individuals cannot.  Originally this meant stuff like building roads and providing for a common defense.  In the twentieth century most advanced countries furthered the cause of government to look after those whom the system has left behind, generally through no fault of their own.  It is the fulfillment of "promoting the general Welfare" mentioned in the US constitution.  It fuels economic growth, lowers crime, and promotes a more just and fair society.  And, God forbid, some day it could be you that's become dependent on the kindness of strangers.

Libertarian-types might claim such charity should be voluntarily handled by individuals and private or religious organizations.  I certainly don't want to downplay the fine work these groups do.  They have a vital role to play in civil society, and anything they can do to lessen the burden on government is well worth it.  But not everyone has access to those services or chooses to seek them.  Someone should not have to receive help from a church whose beliefs they don't share.  This is where government comes in.  Government does not care what god you worship, who you know, or what your demographic characteristics are (generally speaking).  It can provide help when no one else will or can.  That does not mean that everyone gets a free ride.  There are certainly good reasons to put reasonable requirements and qualifications on receiving aid.  (These can go too far - there's a bill in the Kansas legislature to require welfare recipients to apply to two dozen new jobs per week, an impossibility in most Kansas locales.)   Moreover, government may be the most effective institution in leveraging influence, power, and money to effective render aid.  This can actually save money.  Who can more efficiently cover health care costs - a group of concerned citizens, or the US government?  It's the same idea of pooled capital and risk that underlies the basic concepts of insurance.

So, how do progressives get conservatives to consider the needs of others?  For those in small towns, I think the key is promoting awareness to overcome stereotypes.  That doesn't mean people have to abandon small-town life; the Internet has made such awareness easier than ever before and it's one of the missions underlying this blog.  The many opportunities I have had to venture beyond my small-town heritage, meet new people, and understand their struggles and perspectives is a major reason I abandoned my teenage conservatism.  Conversely, many rural residents may never have met an openly gay person, or a Muslim.  They might not even have met a black or Hispanic person (there was one black kid in my middle school - in a bustling metropolis of 20,000 - but none in my high school).  Anyone they know receiving government aid they can vouch for as good people (including themselves - remember the military conservative who has no problem reaping socialist-style benefits), but it's easy for them to assume others are lazy good-for-nothings.  A primary cause of this is that conservative media figures seize on stereotypes and run with them, playing on fears of the unknown and promoting politicians who will end up cutting programs that benefit everybody (the vile untruths that Rush Limbaugh has spewed about non-Cuban Hispanic immigrants alone could fill volumes).  All of which, of course, ends up benefiting the rich.  I'm not worried about them.  They'll always be able to afford health care or college tuition.  They'll never be on welfare.  That's their privilege and I don't want to take it away from them.  I'm just trying to look out for the rest of us.  The 98% are in this together.

When Conspiracy Theories Go Mainstream

My previous post examined how conservatives often utilize feel-good gut reactions when crafting arguments that often fall apart in the face of closer scrutiny.  Today let's look at what happens - more often than not these days - when they are presented with data or facts that directly contradict what they believe deep in their hearts.  Conspiracy!

Of course, conspiracy theories are as old as human history and have deep roots in American history - Roswell, JFK, the moon landing, 9/11 - you know the drill.  They are the natural byproduct of momentous events and have a lot of appeal to amateur investigators, as any X-Files fan would attest.  (I've watched both the 9/11 "truth" movie Loose Change and its rebuttal, Screw Loose Change.) However, when innocent speculation for amusement's sake passes into unfounded paranoia about black helicopters, police states, and the New World Order, conspiracy theories can become dangerous.  Unfortunately, conspiracy theories are increasingly becoming the knee-jerk response when conservatives are presented with facts that they don't like.  They have broken out of the fringe and onto the mainstream media that is Fox News.  (Fox is the number one cable news network and the number one source of "news" for many Americans.  If you doubt it's mainstream, pull your head out of the sand. Also, if you're going to try the "both sides do it" false equivalency on this, please put forth similar theories peddled on MSNBC.)  So I'd like to point out some of these conspiracy theories that Fox and others have recently obsessed over, and then I'll venture into somewhat darker territory, where even the Fox "journalists" fear to tread.

Crazy Like a Fox

Skewed Polls: Before the 2012 election, in about September, when poll after poll was showing Obama pulling ahead of Romney, conservatives at Fox and elsewhere refused to believe it.  In their gut, "Mitt-mentum" was going to carry the day.  So they explained away all that pesky data through the claim that the polls were obviously skewed by liberal media and polling outfits.  They oversampled Democrats, obviously!  They want Republicans to be dismayed and stay home!  Nate Silver's in the bag for Obama!  One pundit even launched an "Unskewed Polls" website claiming to have the real data, which conveniently showed Romney ahead.  Of course, when the polls tightened after the first debate, they were suddenly correct again.  For a couple weeks, anyway.  Then the election happened, and Karl Rove had a meltdown live on Fox, because he apparently believed his own crap.  And the Boston Globe reported that Romney almost conceded but then waited until Fox stood by its Ohio call.  Witness the effects of falling far, far down the conspiracy theory hole.  Post election, nearly half of Republicans thought ACORN stole it for Obama, even though that organization doesn't exist anymore.  Anything to avoid accepting reality.

Skewed Jobs Numbers: While the liberal media was busy rigging polls, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was rigging unemployment data.  When the September 2012 jobs report showed better than expected numbers, conservatives like Fox's Eric Bolling just knew it couldn't be possible.  The BLS was obviously fudging the numbers to help Obama's reelection.  Never mind that the BLS is a nonpartisan organization, its methodology is very transparent and available for anyone to examine, and that economists nationwide agreed the numbers were legit.  The numbers just didn't "feel right" to former GE CEO Jack Welch, and therefore must be faked.  Data, schmata.  Social scientists everywhere were rightfully offended.

Benghazi and Hillary Clinton: There's way too much about Benghazi to go into much detail here, but suffice it to say that Fox has been desperately trying to make something out of the Benghazi attack when it's obvious to everyone else that, while mistakes were made, the idea of a mass government coverup is ludicrous.  They connect the dots in obscure ways that exemplify the "best" of conspiracy theory - everything is plausible and nothing is irrefutable.  I'm pretty sure I could just as easily make the case that Romney knew about the Benghazi attack in advance (his response was suspiciously quick in coming, don't you think?).  But they really went off the deep end when they accused Hillary Clinton of faking a concussion to avoid testifying about Benghazi, even after she was hospitalized for a resulting blood clot.  Fox's Laura Ingraham called it the "Immaculate Concussion" and had a good laugh about it.  Can you imagine the conservative response if liberals had a hearty laugh about a Republican Secretary of State having a potentially life-threatening injury?  Then during the testimony you had Senator Rand Paul calling Benghazi the "worst tragedy since 9/11" (never mind Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, Sandy Hook, or the numerous similar attacks under the Bush administration) and Senator Ron Johnson claiming that Clinton had an "emotional response" to avoid answering questions.  (And can you ever imagine him making that claim about a male SecState?)  And on Feb. 6, with Clinton out of office, Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends had a good chuckle when he proposed that Hillary had had a facelift for the picture on her new website (he later claimed he was referring to the website having a facelift - I say the transcript says otherwise, especially since the website is brand new so can't really have a facelift.  Like saying something is "new and improved.")  It's all part of their plan to preemptively destroy Hillary should she decide to run for President in 2016.  It's sexist, hypocritical (I see lots of the Fox ladies wearing what look like 7-inch heels) and shameful.

(Side note: I really can't stand Steve Doocy.  I can handle most conservative pundits blathering on without much trouble, but something about the smirk on his face when he's spouting the latest Fox bullshit and the fact that he grew up in Kansas and has a degree from KU really makes me want to punch him in the face.)

Obama Shooting Skeet: When the White House released a photo of President Obama skeet shooting, they joked that Photoshop conspiracy theories were sure to follow.  They were, of course, right.  It's impossible for the conservative mind to fathom that a sissy, elite liberal like Obama would ever shoot a gun, so of course it's fake.  Admittedly the White House could have handled this better; even David Axelrod copped to that.  But given that Obama told a TCU skeet shooter in 2010 that he practices with the Secret Service, this conspiracy reaches pretty far and wide.  It's a scary world, huh?

Fox Went Birther: Lastly, Fox rather fully embraced claims that Obama wasn't born in the US, starting in 2011 and continuing through the 2012 election by often giving Donald Trump a platform to air his nuttery.  Again, there's too much here to really dig into, but the "theory" basically rests on crazy notions that a Harvard yearbook carries more legal authority than a birth certificate certified by the Republican governor of Hawaii; that Obama's parents planted a birth announcement in the newspaper because it might come in handy some day, like if their son ran for President; that the Bush-era FBI really screwed up in any background checks they did for Senator and candidate Obama's security clearances; and that, even if he was born here, because he has a foreign-born parent, he belongs to some kind of half-citizen class that no court anywhere has ever defined.  The racist undertones of the birther conspiracy are palpable and offensive; for some conservatives it's just unacceptable that a black man lives in the White House.  I highly, highly doubt this nonsense would exist if Barack Hussein Obama were white.

Glenn Beck and Agenda 21

Just a few years ago Glenn Beck was the biggest name on Fox, besides maybe Bill O'Reilly.  He was even regarded as one of the most widely admired men in America.  Now he's off TV (thank God) but has found a home on conservative radio, where he continues to promote loony right-wing causes, such as building a libertarian Disney World / utopian community in Texas.  Beck is very much on the UN conspiracy theory bandwagon, which I touched on in my discussion of the Republicans' rejection of Bob Dole.  Beck's grave concern is that the UN is going to forcibly implement something called Agenda 21 which will basically lead to the destruction of the American way of life.  Like most conspiracy theories, there's a single grain of truth to this - Agenda 21 does exist.  It is a completely nonbinding set of recommendations and ideas for action to promote sustainable development worldwide in the 21st century - you know, the kind of economic development that improves peoples' lives without trashing the planet in the process.  Beck imagines that Agenda 21 is the first-step to an Orwellian future, with private property forbidden, people tattooed with ID numbers, and a one-world government deciding who lives and who dies.  I'm not joking.  And some politicians agree - newly elected Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz has said, "Agenda 21 dehumanizes individuals by removing the very thing that has defined Americans since the beginning—our freedom."  Nice try, Ted.  Unfortunately, way too many people are buying what Beck, Cruz, and others are selling.

The Dark, Scary World of Erik Rush and "WorldNutDaily"

This final section goes to a bit more disturbing place.  I won't go so far as to call these conspiracy theories mainstream, but the website WorldNetDaily has a loyal following of many internet conservatives.  This is, after all, the site that former and possibly future presidential hopeful Rick Santorum contributes to.  It's important to be aware of these as they can spread further - witness birtherism - and what can be really frightening is to read the comments posted to some of these articles, whose posters often don't think the original writer goes far enough.  To them Obama is literally the Antichrist at the head of the impending godless / communist / fascist takeover.  I'd like to ask them why, if Obama is such a totalitarian, the government hasn't tracked their IP addresses and come knocking on their doors yet.  It's true believers like these that make me glad the Secret Service is around.

Fanning the flames at WND and an even whackier site, Canada Free Press, is a writer named Erik Rush.  He appears on Fox, too.  Below are just a few of his "highlights," which I don't merit as worthy of full discussion.  Note the prevailing lack of, you know, facts and the desperate call of "Why doesn't anybody else see this???" throughout.

• Obama will spark a civil war as he takes us to a communist state worse than the Soviet Union.
• Obama will confiscate Americans' guns to quash civil unrest in his move toward a totalitarian state.
• Obama will have a Stalin-style purge of military leaders on his way to the communist coup.
• Rush buys into the Sandy Hook conspiracy crap.
• Obama wants to put "Doomsday preppers" in concentration camps.
• Obama is selling land to China to help usher in the era of American communism.
• And, lastly, Obama will cancel the 2014 election to aid in his communist consolidation of power.

These people are either professional trolls or have mental health issues.  And yet they are gainfully employed to write this stuff free of any accountability for how wrong they prove to be.  (I'm talking about accountability from the public or their employers, not censorship.)  And that is sad.

A Handy Reference

Finally, keeping track of the multitude of conspiracy theories just surrounding President Obama can be quite difficult.  Fortunately, Mother Jones has constructed this useful Venn diagram chart to help you keep things straight.  The accompanying article provides links to the sources of each theory.  Take a look and remember that this is what happens when a large group of people refuse to accept reality.  When that group comes to hold significant sway over one of a country's two major political parties, that is the real threat to democracy.

Tax Cuts Are Government Spending Too

Sometimes I envy conservatives because on face value their ideas can make a lot of sense.  Budget deficits are bad (only a recent conservative idea).  The government spends too much money.  Tax cuts always help the economy by giving people more money.  Welfare makes it easy for people to become dependent.  Sounds good, right?  These arguments can often feel good in the "gut feeling" sense - it just feels right.  As a teenage conservative I think that's often the place I argued from, because I didn't have the tools to properly analyze the issues.  Since then I've had a healthy dose of social science education and nearly four years experience in state government finances.  I've learned that gut feelings often mean squat in the face of actual data.  Many conservatives, however, seem to still be unaware that the world is a complicated place often unexplainable by "I've got a good feeling."  This was on stark display last November, when Republicans just knew down to their bone marrow that Romney would win, despite poll after poll that showed otherwise.  This belief is on display in many other issues as well - in the case of climate change, they seem unaware of how to properly analyze data, as they gleefully claim that one cold snap in one location on Earth proves that global warming / climate change is a hoax..

Before I get too off track, though, I want to focus on one issue where conservative logic often seems to win on the superficial level - tax cuts and government spending.  "It's your money, not the government's," to paragraph George W. Bush, "so we're gonna give it back to you."  Sounds great, right?  Well, the Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars erased the Clinton surplus and put us on the path to the deficits we now face (but Republicans sure don't like to talk about that).  The theory goes that tax cuts will give everybody more money, which they will spend wisely and generate so much more economic activity that any lost revenue from the lower tax rates will be made up.  Sounds good in the gut, but as I've noted before, there's no real data that supports this, especially when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, who are more likely to save that extra money than put it back into the economy.  Meanwhile, the government has less money to spend on its services.

Which brings me to my main point, which might blow a few conservatives' minds: tax cuts are a form of government spending.  Lowering taxes will bring in less revenue than is otherwise projected.  In essence, the government is "spending" that extra revenue by giving it to people in such a way that it hopes will improve the economy (or, the cynic would argue, to curry political favor with certain groups).  The government could just as easily spend that same revenue on investing in schools, infrastructure, or health care.  In my state government experience, I've seen numerous tax cut proposals put forth by both parties.  As analyzed, not a single one projected a resulting increase in government revenue.  All pointed to a decrease.  The government was spending money it otherwise would have received.

So in all this hysteria over deficits, tax cuts need to be weighed equally with government spending cuts.  And the fact is that government spending can be a more effective way to boost the economy than giving rich people more money.  This is especially true when times are tight; when people and businesses are having to be careful with their finances, the government might be the only institution that can give the economy a shot in the arm.  This is why obsessing over deficits during an economic downturn is a mistake.  Many conservative governments in Europe reacted to the Great Recession by implementing "austerity" cutbacks, and now find themselves in a second recession as a result.  That hasn't happened in the US, thankfully, but if the planned "sequester" cuts go into effect on March 1, we could be headed that way too.  US GDP shrunk by 0.1% in Q4 2012, even though consumer-related indices generally remained stable or improved.  What was the difference?  A sudden, temporary drop in defense spending.  By the government.  To turn another bit of conservative logic on its head, government deficits are not always bad.  Sometimes they are necessary to bail out the economy when nothing else will work.  Just ask Dick Cheney in 2002: "You know, Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."  What a socialist, that guy!

And yet this staple of conservative "logic" is now being ruthlessly applied in my home state of Kansas.  Governor Brownback and his allies slashed income taxes last year, and now Kansas is one of only two states that is projecting a decrease in revenue for next fiscal year.  Tax cuts lowered revenue??  Shock!  Meanwhile the administration might have to go to court or even amend the state constitution to ensure it doesn't have to increase school funding.  It just amazes me that the people who think increasing school funding is pointless are largely the same folks who believe throwing the same money at the rich will magically fix the economy (because teachers making $35,000 are union thugs while millionaire businessmen are altruistic saints, don't you see).  Meanwhile schools with 30+ class sizes and stripped of extracurricular activities might become the norm in Kansas.  It's this kind of thinking that leads me to increasingly believe that the "sounds good" rhetoric is really just empty cover for giving the Koch brothers and other Republican backers a tax break.

Especially since, as I've noted before, what was billed as a tax cut to help all Kansans was actually a tax shift from the rich to the poor and middle classes.  Consequently, in Kansas now a lawyer doesn't pay state income tax, but his secretary does.  A doctor doesn't pay state income tax, but her nurse does.  All in the name of "tax fairness."  Baloney.  Again, I support targeted tax cuts that will put more money in the pockets of people that need it and will spend it.  But the Brownback administration seeks to make up the lost revenue through sales tax increases and other measures that disproportionately affect the incomes of the poor and middle classes.  Kansas is now one of only three states that has no exemptions whatsoever for the sales tax on food.  That is inexcusable.  The other two are very poor Mississippi and Alabama.   And given that those two states are among the biggest moochers off federal tax dollars, maybe conservatives aren't so opposed to fostering government dependency after all.