One afternoon, chatting with one of my Sociology profs in her office, I was handed an idea which has proved to be a source of continuing illumination into all the ways in which we humans can be seen to imagine reality.
That idea, from the fertile mind of this amazing man, was that when we consider abstract notions, we begin by using or assuming a pair of binary opposites – good/evil, black/white, etc. We impose that conceptual framing or architecture over what we are trying to understand or make sense of. It may not be, indeed probably rarely ever is, an accurate reflection of the real world but using this simplistic conceptual framework allows us to begin thinking about whatever the abstract subject is.
One interesting aspect to consider here is how some people in certain circumstances seem to be unable to formulate a more nuanced or complicated conceptual mapping (shades of grey, to use the cliche) but stand firm in their insistence/certainty that the simplistic framing of binary or polar opposities represents the most valuable and fundamental truth of things, a ‘truth’ which is in danger of being lost if one allows nuance and complexity. These are the humans that scare me.
Is the John Hagee/Joe Lieberman alliance of right-wing American Jews and evangelical Christians — based on the premise that God demands that all land, including the West Bank and Gaza, be possessed by Jews — devoted to the advancement of “the Western way of reason”? Is the platform of the Texas GOP — which calls for the criminalization of all sex between gay adults; the denial of all custody rights to gay people, even over their own children; the teaching of creationism in all public schools; and the denial of medical care to prisoners other than those who can pay for it — an example of “the Western way of reason”? How about the Catholic Church’s proselytizing against birth control in areas of the world drowning in poverty, AIDS and overpopulation? Are torture, Guantanamo, Bagram, disappearing people, immunizing war criminals and multiple decade-long wars shining examples of “the Western way of reason”? How about invading a country on totally false pretenses, shattering and destroying it, and causing the deaths of at least 100,000 human beings?
Hey – look over there. Muslims. They’re waging war on reason and taking over. We have to unite to stop them. Glenn Greenwald
Lynn Vincent made headlines when she was selected as the ghostwriter for Sarah Palin’s soon-to-be-bestselling memoir, “Going Rogue.” As an editor at the Christian World magazine, Vincent has railed against abortion rights, gay marriage and the theory of evolution. She is also the coauthor of the book “Donkey Cons,” which purports to prove, among other claims, “how Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy were elected with the help of the mob.” Her coauthor on that book, Robert Stacey McCain (no relation to John McCain) has spoken outagainst interracial marriage.
As I suggested below, the RNC types may be setting up Liz Cheney for a political run at the presidency or, perhaps more likely, the VP slot. It’s a bit difficult to game out what these incredible jerks are up to.
As announced recently, Cheney is being pushed forward as one of the heads (along with Bill Kristol) of “Keep America Safe”. Maureen Dowd writes:
Kristol joked to Politico’s Ben Smith that the venture might serve as a launching pad for Liz to run for office. (A Senate bid from Virginia, where she lives, or Wyoming, which she still calls home?)
That raises the terrifying specter that some day we could see a Palin-Cheney ticket, promoted by Kristol.
Sarah would bring her content-free crackle and gut instincts; Liz would bring facts and figures distorted by ideology. Pretty soon, we’re pre-emptively invading Iran and the good times are rolling all over again.
We’ll recall that one of the valid and biting arguments against George W Bush running for the presidency was that he was a mental lightweight and that the addition of Dick Cheney to the ticket (Cheney was in charge of choosing a VP and chose himself) added “gravitas”. This notion was all the rage in punditry at the time. And (with the help of the Supreme Court) it worked. An immature, ex-alcoholic, anti-intellectual with a C average gained the position of President and did the posturing while Cheney pretty much ran the show.
Interesting bit in this Carville/Matalin interview on CNN yesterday. It isn’t Carville’s observation that Glenn Beck is both nuts and seriously stupid about everything. Rather it is Matalin’s attempted narrative…
“So what he [Beck] has tapped into is really, really what I think is going to be the dispositive future for us. Maligned mothers.”
I’ve heard Matalin use “dispositive” before and it’s always awkward because the word is almost never used outside of a legal context and because few people know the term (I had to look it up to make sure my sense of it was correct).
But aside from that, the really interesting point here is the “future for us” (Republicans/conservatives) will be “maligned mothers”.
First, have any of you heard Beck talking about maligned mothers? I haven’t.
Second, it’s pretty obvious who Matalin is speaking of here and that’s Palin. More accurately, the Palin of propaganda narrative…media/liberal victimized and maligned female with offspring. Dollars to donuts that narrative will be a/the key narrative in Palin’s book.
How does this serve (or hope to serve) Republican propaganda and electoral purposes? As with PUMA, Clintons4McCain etc, it’s an attempt to pull women towards voting Republican, obviously. Second, it’s another means to make the mainstream media (the non conservative noise machine media structures) look invalid or biased. Third, it’s a means to forward Palin as a candidate OR to use Palin (who won’t run) as a supportive voice in forwarding another female candidate. And if that’s it, that other female would be Liz Cheney.
(cross-posted at Plumline)
Update: It is difficult to imagine that the Republican crowd does not have hopes and plans for Ms Cheney. But I wanted to note an opinion on Palin advanced by Joe Trippi last evening. He suggested that she would be used for fundraising (which of course also means motivating an activist base). That’s a smart take on this and a clear possibility.
This is an extraordinary discussion. Don’t miss it. God knows how many arguments I have had with other leftie/liberal types on the accuracy and credibility of Noam Chomsky’s analysis of modern media as handmaiden to the powerful and wealthy but it has been many more than it ought to have been. These three very bright people get it.
Andrew Leonard is unhappy with my colleague David Brooks for suggesting that rising debt in America reflects moral decay. Surprisingly, however, Leonard doesn’t make what I thought was the most compelling critique.
David points out, correctly, that something changed around 1980 — that consumers started spending a larger share of national income and that debt began increasing. Although he doesn’t point this out, this was also when the federal government first began running substantial deficits even in good years.
David would have you believe that what happened then was a decline in Calvinist virtue. But, um, didn’t something else happen around 1980? Can’t quite remember .. someone whose name begins with the letter “R”?
The turn to budget deficits was a direct result of the new, Irving-Kristol inspired political strategy of pushing tax cuts without worrying about the “accounting deficiencies of government.”
Matt Yglesias drops this graph into a short discussion on a recent Krugman column or post. Note, if you will, the two lines that show a 1 to 1 correspondence.
Bernie Latham