THREE EXAMPLES! Rachel Maddow loses her mind. Digby trains us to hate: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2011
Paul Krugman/What Medicaid does: Well offer one small semi-criticism of Paul Krugmans column from last Friday. As a matter of political rhetoric, it may not be a great idea to refer to the federal government as a giant insurance company, mainly serving older people, that also has an army.
Progressives may enjoy the humor. Others may conclude that the Ryan-lovers are right if thats what our government is.
Thats just a hunch about cheeky rhetorica hunch which could be wrong. Hunch expressed, the rest of Krugmans spot-on column was devoted to explaining that cheeky description. In effect, Krugman explained where the money goes.
Hint: A great chunk of that federal money goes to senior citizens.
Well assume that many people dont understand the facts which follow, especially the facts about Medicaid. That said, these facts are very important. Krugman explains them well:
Lets summarize: Aside from the army and the debt, the great bulk of federal money goes to those three famous programs. And please take note of this very key point: While Medicaid is often thought of as a poverty program, these days it's largely about providing nursing care. According to Krugman, two-thirds of Medicaids spending goes to the elderly and/or the disabled. And heres one more important point, a point Krugman doesnt fully articulate: Medicaids deeply humane nursing care includes the middle-class elderly.
Theres a good chance that you and your family arent poor. But the Medicaid program serves you and yours, along with those who may be less fortunate. If youre middle-class, Medicaid serves you tooperhaps through its service to your parents and grandparents.
As Krugman suggests, many people dont know that.
In his column, Krugman goes on to explain why older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas. Well strongly suggest that you read the whole column, though no one can provide complete explanations in a mere 700 words. Heres one point you should consider: For the most part, the Ryan plan leaves Medicare alone for the next ten years. But unless were mistaken, Medicaid, with its deeply humane nursing services, would take a big hit right away.
For us, this column carried a special resonance because of the day on which it arrived. Last Friday, we journeyed a few hundred miles to the north to visit an 84-year-old friend who has been having serious medical challenges in the past six weeks.
We were impressed, and moved, by what we sawby services funded through Medicaid. Those services were being provided by decent, caring peoplethe kinds of people who dont get famous hosting Hardball, who dont write columns about the interesting past of the latest pols naughty bad wife.
During our visit, we thought back to the late 1950s, to nursing facilities we visited when we were a child, when there was no Medicaid. On Monday, well try to lay out a few of those thoughts. (We want to get them right.)
For today, well recommend Krugmans column with its (possibly) imperfect rhetoric and its humane network of ideas. Question: How well does the liberal/progressive world explain these ideas to the public?
THREE EXAMPLES (permalink): How strong are the intellectual and moral foundations of the liberal/progressive world?
In our view, those foundations arent strong. Lets consider three recent examples, examples involving progressive intellectual leaders and, in one case, the reactions to same by the liberal/progressive electorate:
Reactions to Cornel West on Obama: We were surprised by Cornel Wests recent remarks concerning Barack Obama. We were surprised by Wests racial invective and by the relative pettiness of his personal complaints (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/18/11).
We found Wests comments surprising because West has always been so inclusive when he talks about race. In our view, the passion of his inclusiveness has been one of Wests genuine gifts to the world. We were disappointed when he fell off this wagonas all of us do on occasion.
We were surprised by Wests remarksbut we were amazed by progressive readers reactions to Joan Walshs piece in Salon. You can read Walshs piece about West, and the reader reactions, for yourself (just click here). Summarizing, we will say this: An amazing number of progressive readers seemed to be amazingly clueless about the reasons why Americans (and others) need to be careful about various types of racial speech.
In our view, Wests statements about Obamas comfort level with Jewish men takes us into dangerous territory. But Obama does have Jewish associates, many progressives replied.
If thats the best we progressives can do, its no wonder we progressives make so little progress.
We were surprised by the things West said because he has always been such a valuable leader in this area. That said, might we offer a second thought? Cornel West may be an inspirational intellectual leader in a wide assortment of ways. That doesnt mean he knows a lot about American politics. As an example, consider this part of his now-famous interview with Chris Hedges:
For ourselves, we would generally agree with what West says about the greed of the oligarchs and the plutocrats, and about the escalating squeeze on the poor and the working class. But the notion that Obama could have taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe represents a form of magical thinking. Despite making about a thousand speeches, Bill Clinton couldnt even get the public to know what was in his 1993 budget plan. In 2009, Obama experienced the same epic fail as he tried to explain his health plan. Its silly to think that American presidents can wave a magic wand and educate the public about political matters that are even more complex. That isnt the way it works.
More sensibly, the professors and the journalists and the intellectuals have to educate the public, a task which takes many years. In this instance, West and his colleagues have badly failed, although this doesnt make them bad people. In fact, the task is quite hard.
During the age of conservative talk, we liberals used to laugh at conservatives. The cluelessness of the conservative masses was put on display every day. Now, progressives and liberals are talking out loud.
How much sharper are we?
Rachels Cheney-based lunacy: For years, the air waves crackled with Rush and Seanand with ditto-head callers.
Now, corporate liberals are on the air too. But how strong are their intellectual foundations? How strong is their moral comprehension? How good is their political judgment?
How well do they know their stuff?
For the latest antics of Beer Hall Eddie, go aheadjust click here. (Uh-oh! Big Ed has been goose-stepping around town again.) Then too, there was Rachel Maddows astounding performance on last evenings Maddow program. For our money, her first half hour was littered with her trademark political incomprehension and her trademark ridiculous self-regard. But for now, just consider her astounding segment about the cover photo on Dick Cheneys new book. (To see the vile photo, click this.)
Rachel was troubled by Cheneys pic. She teased the segment like this:
Through some miracle of mind-reading, Rachel promised to show us why Cheneys photo looks weirdly familiar to us. And not only that: She warned us that her upcoming report would probably bother us. At this point, she gave us a knowing two-second stare, helping us see how troubling this whole thing really was. (To watch this tease, click this, then move to the end of the segment.)
Why might Cheneys photo seem familiar? Duh. The photo seems to show Cheney in the White House; behind him you see the familiar backdrop for presidential press conferences. Since Cheney never served as president, the photo is a bit grandiose. And given a decade of speculation, the photo lends itself to obvious jibes about who was really in charge.
Maddow, though, went a giant step further, in an analysis which fell just this side of total delusion. Why did that photo look weirdly familiar? Maddows explanation was so bizarreand so solipsisticthat its worth quoting a fairly good chunk. That said, we strongly suggest that you watch the whole segment (click here).
Is this person in her right mind?
You really have to watch the tape, but that analysis is the work of a genuine lunatic. Is this person in her right mind?
Classic Maddow! The Cheney photo reminded her of Obamas press conference about bin Laden. For that reason, she assumed it would trigger that same memory in everyone else who sees itand she rather plainly suggests that this was Cheneys intention. We wont even try to explain how bizarre that is, but it does reaches Limbaugh-esque levels of lunacy. She thinks that Cheney dressed as he did in his books cover photo to mimic the way Obama dressed on that night. Angrily, she even claims that Cheney wore his flag pin in his left lapel because thats where President Barack Obama wore his flag pin! (Good god. Thats where everyone wears flag pins!) Most crazily, she announces, with a genuine tone of grievance, that Cheneys photo is a perfect copy of a photo of Obama announcing bin Ladens death, except of course on his book cover Mr. Cheney stands a head taller than President Obama.
Is Rachel Maddow out of her mind? Cheney was standing a head taller than Obama only because thats the way Maddows staff arranged the two photos which had Rachel so upset. (To see this, you must watch the tape.)
Barring some other explanation, that segment is the work of a lunatic. Can it be good for progressive interests when crackpots provide our ideas?
The most powerful word in the language: Maddow struck us as politically clueless from start to finish last night. Consider the way she handled next weeks special election in New Yorks 26th House district. She noted that Rep. Allen West is making robo-calls for Jane Corwin, the embattled GOP candidate in the heavily Republican district. She then proceeded to make a big deal about something West recently said about Medicarea statement whose rather obvious meaning Maddow rather plainly miscast.
Is Maddow really this clueless? Or was she simply playing her viewers? We dont know, but heres the point which struck us about Wests robo-calls: Rep. West is black! And yet, hes the person the GOP picked to make those callsto make those calls to a group of voters who are supposed to be snarling racists.
Do our liberal intellectual leaders really act as if conservative voters, as a group, are a gang of snarling racists? Consider this recent post by Digby, a post which represents an example of genuine liberal hate speech.
Someone sent Digby a truly unfortunate, anti-Semitic e-mail. (Needless to say, it was typed in all caps.) Digbys reaction struck us as truly unfortunate. The right wingers just can't help themselves, she said at the start of her post, thus turning one person into a group. Her post appeared beneath this headline: The language they can understand.
Lets review: One person sent a broken-souled e-mail. In response, Digby used the most powerful word in the language: They.
One person sent Digby an e-mailbut to Digby, it was the doing of them (of the right-wingers). Used in this way, they is a powerful, ugly worda shorter form of those people.
In reality, those people are now getting phone calls from Rep. West. Two weeks ago, they fell in love with Herman Cain at that first GOP debatein South Carolina, no less! Cain is black, of course, like West. And yet, those people are known to be racists.
Are you sure they hate Obama because hes black? Could it be because hes a Democrat?
Our haters insist that theyre full of hate! Can it be good for progressive interests when we train ourselves to hate in this way? In a way which is so pre-historic?
Transcripts are slow to appear at this channel: If Maddows transcript ever becomes available, you will find it here.
As of now, theyre a full week behind.