Spin

Who to Blame for Extremists? The Greatest Battle Ever Twittered

Yesterday’s assault on two guards at the Holocaust Museum has, unfortunately, incited both sides of the political spectrum into an unseemly blame game (“bomb the internet” indeed), with some on the left attempting to tar the entire conservative community with Brunn’s crimes, and some on the right straining to tie him instead to some definition of “leftism” (who knew Nazis were left-wing?).

Both are wrong. Von Brunn was a veritable grab-bag of hate, with some positions evincing a nexus with the far-right, and a few with the far-left. Given this evidence, there’s nothing wrong with categorizing him as a “right-wing extremist,” nor is it inaccurate to note that DHS’ earlier report on the dangers of right-wing extremism might, now, look a little more reasonable than it already was. Indeed, the far-far-right has even started to scare Fox News:

Taking note of these facts is a matter of national security, not grandstanding. The only fault lies in imputing extremism to the conservative community at large. To the extent that anyone is doing that (and “Kos” founder @markosm kinda sorta is), they’re flat-out wrong. All ideologies have their extremists, and most have some sort of sordid past. But just as we on the left flatly reject our extremists and would give our lives to defeat them (communists/violent anarchists), so would the vast, vast majority on the right devote their lives to opposing fascism. No ideology is defined by its extreme, and superficial similarity between criminals and legitimate, responsible conservatives (OMG, Roeder was “pro-life,” and so is Sarah Palin!!) does not allow us to tar the latter with the former’s crimes.

This is the correct response to anyone attempting to impute terrorist acts to entire groups.  But it’s not been the response, from either side, to the shameless blame-gaming that admittedly has occurred. RedState, outraged by the perception that Daily Kos would try to schluff Von Brunn off on the right, responded by schluffing him off on the left, and insisting, in a fact-immune rage, that “leftists celebrate each and every death of each and every American solider because they view the loss of life as a vindication of their belief that they are right.” Claims like these don’t really deserve the dignity of a reply: if Erick Erickson can’t parse the difference between opposing a war and opposing the soldiers who fight the war, that’s his own problem.

These reactions to the perception of liberal blame-gaming evince a shocking logical disconnect. If Daily Kos was wrong to engage in tasteless grandstanding, the proper response is to condemn grandstanding – not take it as an excuse to engage in the same, from the opposite perspective.

Both sides should own up to their demons, and find common ground in opposing them. Such tragedies can even be a chance to bridge divides – as Tony Blair attempted to do in the wake of the ’05 Tube bombings – and in today’s hyperpartisan society, we can’t afford to squander such opportunities. It doesn’t matter if a terrorist belongs to the right, belongs to the left, belongs to Islam, or belongs to Christianity – these are definitional questions that do not speak to the merits of whatever ideology the terrorist decides to pervert. What matters is that we recognize the dangers of extremism, period. Too bad the only other blogger noting this point doesn’t have a job anymore.

Miss California Loses Her Crown: Be Happy, for the Right Reasons

In a non-political ouster, Miss California was stripped of her title for failing to fulfill her role: essentially, not going to meetings. Good riddance. I won’t miss her, and I suspect you won’t either. We should be careful, however, about how that comes out. For one, we should avoid both the actuality and the appearance of sexism. And, more importantly, we should avoid suggesting that a belief in gay equality is somehow a prerequisite for membership in civil society (which is how NOM is reading the termination). It isn’t.

To be sure, there aren’t a lot of principled grounds on which to oppose gay marriage. If homosexuality is not a choice – and really, the evidence is in on this one – the conclusion follows logically and directly that, barring some hitherto unarticulated objective harm, gay men and women deserve our respect, and full equality before the law. That includes marriage. Reasonable people can disagree with elements of this argument, and although legitimate bases for disagreement continue to decrease, and I have no problem with those who find them compelling. I do object, though, to those whose only arguments flow from some subjective, personal morality, or an attempt to cling thoughtlessly to tradition.

Carrie Prejean falls into the latter category, and this alone is my problem with her. I welcome debate with reasonable spokespersons who oppose gay marriage, but because she manages only to recycle meaningless definitional quibbles, I cannot respect Ms. Prejean, and will be glad to see her fade as an opinion maker.

No, support for gay marriage is not a prerequisite to membership in elite society. Being able to defend controversial positions, though, should indeed be such a qualification. Consequentially, I’m not much of a fan of Perez Hilton either.

Comrade Reagan: Photoshop Contest!!

According to the Republicans’ new definition, Ronald Reagan was a Communist: Reagan raised taxes on gas in 1982, on payrolls in 1983, on general taxes in 1984, and on corporate taxes in 1986. Put into Palin rhetoric, he “went after” the middle class (small businesses), and outright assaulted corporate America! That’s not change we can believe in!!

So, to remind the Republicans that their favorite talking point implicates their hero, and per Kris’ suggestion, we’re going to host a Photoshopping competition. Whoever makes the most compelling insertion of Ronald Reagan’s image into some communist propaganda piece will win our undying adoration, and probably something cool too. You can e-mail submissionstoacandidworld@gmail.com, and feel free to use this blank template. Readers, tear down this talking point!

Terror Detainees in New York: Neither Scary, Nor New

God help us all. Ahmed Ghailani, former Guantanamo detainee and suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings, arrived this morning in New York for trial, which means that, by the time you read this, Manhattan probably won’t exist anymore. At least, that’s RedState’s opinion. Excuse me if I’m skeptical.

Contrary to the conservative talking point, which frames detainee trials on American soil as novel and dangerous, America has been detaining suspects within the continental U.S. since the War on Terror began. As one example among many, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, whom the Bush Adminsitration designated as an “enemy combatant,” has been detained in Illinois and Charleston, and if I’m not mistaken, those states are still on the map.

GOP resistance to detaining terror suspects on American soil seems to be premised on the idea that jails somehow don’t work: where you read “detention and trial in New York,” they want you to substitute “a pleasant afternoon shopping on Fifth Avenue.” Please, don’t buy it.

Shallow Republican Talking Point Actually Loses Depth: Or, “Comrade Reagan”

Socialism on the march!

By attacking any form of progressive taxation as “socialism” or “class warfare” in 2008, the GOP arrayed itself fully against any form of intellectual honesty on the issue. After all, if taxing the rich is socialistic, America’s experiment with capitalism ended long, long before January 20, 2009. In fact, by that definition, the father of capitalism himself was a socialist:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

This neo-red baiting took yet another turn for the hypocritical yesterday, when Grover Norquist’s far-right “Club for Growth” nominated Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) for their “Comrade of the Month” award – all because he broke a promise not to raise taxes. Apparently, “socialism” now sweeps within its definition any increase in taxes, period. Mr. Norquist might be surprised to learn that, by this definition, even his hero President Reagan is a “socialist”: Reagan increased taxes at four times during his presidency, including the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was at the time “the largest corporate tax increase in history.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Taxes and tax increases are facts of life in a modern democracy. It’s time to get beyond the urban legend that taxes are either anti-capitalist, or avoidable. Until we do, I’ll be happy to bandy about the phrase “Comrade Reagan.”

Religious Freedom & Gay Marriage

The facts – in five minutes. No need to read my more obtuse wall-of-text posts. Just watch this guy (you’re welcome!!).

The Centrality of Judicial Review: Pierce the Spin on Sotomayor’s Confirmation

Judicial activism isn't all bad. Just ask any minority public school student.

On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich published in “Human Events” what for all the world looks like a talking points memo on everything presumptively wrong with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Amidst spouting the usual outrage about the evils of “empathy” and “diversity” – qualities the right actually values in other judges – Newt asks the following question:

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Gee, Newt, I dunno: how does ex-Congressman Gingrich come down on the issue of push polling? The American people deserve to know.

In any event, in previous articles, we’ve explained the centrality of judicial review to the American system of government, analyzed the historical value of “judicial activism,” and explained how conservatives and liberals alike can responsibly make their cases about the meaning judicial review.

However, we’re not so naive as to believe that responsible debate has any place in most battles of the culture war. Go over 140 characters, and you’ve probably lost the attention of most of the media. Here, then, is our attempt to break down the debate on “judicial activism,” talking point by talking point. Continue reading »

“Responsibility”: the Answer to Republican Tax Spin, and a Chance to Vanquish Reaganomics

Since Obama announced his tax plan in the run-up to the 2008 election, the Republican Party’s one and only response has been simple, predictable, and wholly beside the point: “Socialism.”

By focusing on the recipients of the greatest tax increases, the GOP has managed to effectively dodge a more essential and (for them) damaging debate – that of the value and effectiveness of tax cuts, in general. Both the Reagan mythology and Republican appeal are premised on the idea that cutting taxes is the solution to any economic crisis threatening the nation. It’s an easy idea to sell: who doesn’t like saving money? But it’s also a vast oversimplification.

No nation can cut taxes without also cutting spending. For tax cuts to be safe, let alone desirable, the government must cut both, a feat that no Republican President in the modern era has ever managed to accomplish (despite all talk to the contrary). Reagan’s attempt to divorce tax cuts from coordinate spending cuts failed utterly, a fact that ultimately doomed his successor by forcing him to raise taxes. While Bush junior’s attempt to succeed where his father failed is the direct cause of our current predicament, the root of the problem remains in the irresponsibility of “Reaganomics.”

The current economic crisis gives Democrats a rare chance to make this historical point, and vanquish once and for all the notion that we as a nation can live beyond our means. The real danger for America today isn’t that the rich might – heaven forfend! – pay what they paid under Clinton (the horror!). It’s that, sometime after Obama leaves office, we’ll let ourselves be seduced again by the promise of easy answers and $300 rebates. Raising taxes isn’t about “socialism.” It’s about basic responsibility. Or, more simply still, “freedom isn’t free.”

Twitterers in the Mist: Glenn Beck is a Complicated Man…

Dear readers, if you’re fans of this site, I hope you’re also following us on Twitter. If so, please make sure to add these individuals too, as they’re always sure to deliver comic relief:

• Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), @akgovsarahpalin
• Disgraced ex-Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-0), @newtgingrich
• Fox News Pundit cum eschatologist Glenn Beck, @GlennBeck
• RedState Founder Erick Erickson, @ewerickson

Not convinced? Just look at the gems you’re missing:

• Sarah Palin basically doesn’t get eighth-grade grammar. And, were you wondering “where in the world and when in time is Stephen Colbert going to be in the Persian Gulf”? She’s happy to tell.
• Newt Gingrich thinks everyone’s a racist.
• On his Twitter account – the real one – Glenn Beck tries his best to calm a jittery public, but keeps getting consumed by his inner emo.
• Erick Erickson hates gays, but thinks lesbians are pretty hot, and fun to laugh at, too. He also loves racist jokes, racist politics, and racist historiography. Offended? Americans are too politically correct – quit that liberal censorship! God help you, though, if you knock a conservative, that’s profiling! Those positions seem hard to reconcile, but don’t worry – he can do it. After all, he’s much smarter than David Souter.

Good times.

Don’t Let Dick Cheney Fool You: Parsing his Remarks on Gay Marriage

By now, many of you will have heard that, apparently, for some reason, Dick Cheney is suddenly in favor of gay marriage:

I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis… But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

This doesn’t make him “to the left” of Obama. By his own language, he’s against a federal statute extending marital benefits to gay couples, which Obama supports. Don’t let Cheney trick you into thinking he’s outflanked the President.

Also, don’t forget the Bush legacy: for eight years, Cheney’s President used gay marriage as a wedge issue to divide the nation, and scare recalcitrant voters into his waiting grasp. If Cheney does support gay marriage – as he’s intimated to us before – then he clearly has never cared enough to do anything about it.