REJECTING THE JOY OF SECT! At Salon, a string of dogs werent eating the tribal dog food: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011
This just in, some thirty years later: We strongly recommend this post, in which Jonathan Chait methodically debunks a very basic political claim. Here is that very basic claim, as stated by the gruesome Tim Pawlenty in a recent interview:
"When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenueshistory does not [bear] that out."
Thats what Pawlenty told Dave Weigel in a recent interview (click here). But then, you can see Pawlenty reciting this crap all over your TV dial.
Quite methodically, Chait walks you through the various problems with Pawlentys reasoning. We wouldnt say Chait does a perfect job, but then again, nobody does. He does explore a set of basic points about this very familiar claim. Any liberal or progressive should understand these points, given the fact that this ludicrous claim has played a key role in American politics for most of the past thirty years.
Chait does a good job in this postbut why was his post required? Why cant every liberal and every progressive recite his points in their sleep?
The answer to that question is simple. The career liberal world has peacefully dozed as Pawlentys claim, and so many others, seized control of our political discourse during the past thirty years. In a more rational world, liberal and progressive entities would have spent the past several decades constructing careful, understandable rebuttals to this consummate garbage. By now, such rebuttals would exist in digest form at well-known, highly competent web sites. Every liberal would know where to go to find such basic points explainedto find such basic points explained in understandable ways.
Liberals would know where to send their centrist or non-political friends to find these points explained. There would be no need for someone like Chait to spend his time on that post.
By the way: In that more rational world, liberal and progressive entities would have spent the past several decades yelling at major mainstream news orgs, insisting that they treat these familiar bogus claims as major news hooks. When someone like Pawlenty makes such a claim, it should be viewed as a major news story. Millions of voters are being misled. The New York Times should report that fact in a front-page analysis piece.
That will happen when cows jump the moonin large part, thanks to a generation of pseudo-liberals, a generation which slept.
If you are a liberal or a progressive, you should be very angry when you read Chaits excellent post. A generation of sleeping liberals is indicted by its very existence. By the way: Why did this generation doze as these bogus talking-points were driven deep into voters heads?
Dumbness is surely part of the answerbut those liberals were also store-bought. They hold good posts within the establishment, posts which bring them wealth and fame. In such an arrangement, few rocked the boat! Politely, they just looked away.
Do you really think a whole generation of liberals didnt see what was happening? Weve been screaming about these points for a decade. Why didnt career liberals react?
Chait presents a very good posta post which appears some thirty years later. Our question: Why arent you angry at the generation of liberals which enjoyed such a good solid rest? Why dont you join us in naming their names? Are you in thrall to your tribes authority figures?
Are you a ditto-head too?
PART 2REJECTING THE JOY OF SECT (permalink): A confession:
Yesterday, we omitted one of the revelations the SALON STAFF managed to cull from Sarah Palins e-mails, which were made public last Friday. Below, we post that additional highlight. This revelation came to light at 3:50 PM:
In this case, the staff admitted that the revelation was trivial. But the revelationthis highlightwas also amusing, they said.
Sadly, thats a key point.
Salons silly, sad report was written from deep in the tribal beltfrom a place where liberals gather together to sample the joy of sect. We tribal believers convince ourselves that we in our tribe are the good decent people, and that the others are bad dumb indecent. And when you live in the tribal belt, every item will prove these factsno exceptions permitted! Deep inside the tribal belt, almost everything counts as a highlight, no matter how stupid, inane or trivial the item in question might be.
We gather together to give the lords blessing to ourselves and our glorious tribe! In the process, we flatter and amuse ourselvesand we fail to advance our agenda. Those who arent already in our tribe think were fools when they see us clowning. Our revelations do nothing at all to move them toward our side.
Were also wasting time which could be spent in productive ways.
But then, we liberals are extremely good at this kind of self-defeating behavior. We have been practicing pointless, undisciplined conduct for the past thirty years. (This includes the long chunks of time when we went off and slept in the woods.) If you doubt that we have relentlessly failed, look around at the shape of our national discourseat the unchallenged suppositions which rule political debate in so many basic areas.
At Salon, the children were clowning again, enjoying their revelations about Palins taste in hats. But heres the good news:
A surprising number of Salon readers seemed prepared to push back.
Some commenters were Palin fans, pushing back against all implied criticism. But other commenters sounded like frustrated liberals and progressives, frustrated by the foolishness being purveyed at this site. Thats how this, the twelfth commenter, sounded to us, although this readers political views werent made clear:
Three cheers for any reader who rails against the vapid work at our major sites! And good lord! Six comments later, another reader rolled his eyes at Salons vapid report:
Who knows? That reader could be a Palin fan. But that reader might be a serious liberal, a person whos tired of all the crap that sites like Salon sell us rubes. And uh-oh! Barring impersonation, the very next comment came from a flat-out angry progressive:
This commenter wasnt impressed by the revelation about Palins use of "unflippinbelievable! But then, before long, two other complaints rolled in:
The political views of these readers werent clear. But all these comments, and some others which followed, seemed to reject the focus on utterly pointless trivia. Hurrah! Some of the dogs werent eating the dog food their tribal lords had set out.
That evening, Rachel Maddow extended the tribal nonsense, starting a segment on the e-mails with one more inane revelation. With Rachel, of course, we had to sit through the song and dance where she pretends to be embarrassed by a naughty word. (For transcript, see below.)
Like those commenters, we were annoyed by the clowning at Salon. We were further annoyed by Maddows silly-girl exhibition. Our view? We live in a very dangerous time; liberals and progressives should be pushing hard to save a sinking ship of state. But all around, you see clowning hacks from the play-for-pay media world, selling us rubes the silly shit that puts extra dough in their pants.
Within this corporate culture, paid liberal media sells silly shit tailored for gullible liberals.
In part, this nonsense is good for business. In part, it builds the liberal worlds sense of its own tribal greatness. But when we live inside the tribal belt, we can lose our sense of the way out of our nations current mess. We liberals love to roll our eyes at true belief in the Bible belt. Are we really so very different when we praise our glorious tribe in such fatuous ways?
There has been a lot of tribal pimping at our liberal sites in the past few weeks. Their fools are hypocritesbut our fools arent! Sarah and Newt are just laughably silly! Ensign and Vitter were much worse than Weiner! Thrills go up legs in the tribal belt when such pleasing pap gets sold. But does this childish, trivial conduct advance progressive interests?
Correction: Salons report appeared on Friday, not Saturday. Weve corrected yesterdays post.
Tomorrow: Was Weiner a hypocrite?
Her standard love-me-Im-innocent hook: On Friday night, Maddow featured a different revelation from the Palin e-mails. As usual, we had to sit through the song and dance where she pretends to be embarrassed by a naughty worda naughty word she has specifically chosen to air.
To watch the full segment, just click this. As it opens, Maddow is perched beneath a quotation from an e-mail which includes a very naughty wordcondoms. She is plainly quite embarrassed by this naughty word:
The naughty phrase means absolutely nothing, this darling child explained. In that sense, its like a great deal of the silly shit we now get sold on her program.