Not A Big Deal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 05:54:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias seems to be saying that the significance of the political debate in America is overstated:

What should be avoided is the tendency to dramatically overstate the ideological stakes in our political debates. The choice between Democratic candidates and Republicans ones is important and has important consequences. But in the grand scheme of things, you’re seeing what’s basically a friendly debate between two different varieties of the liberal tradition. I think efforts to elide the difference between the religiously inflected populist nationalism of George W Bush and the religiously inflected populist nationalism of Mullah Omar are really absurd, as are the efforts by Glenn Beck to elide the difference between the progressive income tax and Joseph Stalin.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yglesias is doing two things here. The first is saying that in the "grand scheme of things," there is not much to choose from between Republicans and Democrats. I think that is absurd at this point in time. As regular readers know, I have had a lot to criticize regarding the Obama Administration, but the idea that there are not fundamental differences of governing philosophy with the Bush Administration strikes me as one of the dumber things written in some time. More . . .

Indeed, can you imagine a governing philosophy doing more damage to America than it did during the Bush Administration? Frankly, I can not.

The problem I have with the Obama Administration is its failure to seek a bigger break from the governing philosphy that permeated the Bush Administration -- to not govern in what was traditionally thought of as the Democratic governing philosophy. The fact that late 2008 seemed more like 1932 than any other period we have lived through since FDR reinforced that view for me.

The second thing Yglesias did was take a shot at Markos Moulitsas by comparing him to Glenn Beck. Oh BTW, with some complete horsesh*t. Moulitsas never said Bush was like Mullah Omar - instead he said there are influential elements of the Extreme Right that resemble the Taliban. Something that Yglesias at one point conceded.

I guess the "new civility" requires false comparisons of folks like Markos to Glenn Beck. Maybe that is the new requirement for career advancement in The Beltway Media. Personally, I find the tactic pretty despicable. YMMV.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Obama Ends High Tech Border Fence >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Not A Big Deal | 51 comments (51 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Boy (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 05:59:47 PM EST

That Mullah Omar reference is really "inside baseball", for those who don't read Markos.

WOW....my grandma Vera (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:05:48 PM EST

is now a deceased leftie version of Glenn Beck. That is some bad voodoo karma that Matt is conjuring up from the graves of all those now dead New Deal Democrats. He had better hope that we don't have souls or spirits that survive our deaths :)

Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:18:56 PM EST

it sounds to me like nothing more than the "they both do it apologia" that the beltway is so in love with.

It is tiresome and it is getting us nowhere fast.

Godwins Law type issues. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:53:11 PM EST

Since the chattering class is 'above the fray,' both sides are equally inferior. Except the side that wants a class war (like pre-2000 income tax rates). Funny how using Marxist phrases is okay any time as a criticism, but no comparison to Hitler is appropriate. You can't even compare Hitler 1944 to Hitler 1939.

Some policies are fascistic, some are totalitarian. Just don't try to call 'em that.


: Clap, clap, clap, clap! (none / 0) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 01:00:59 AM EST

Bravo. Extremely well said.

The Liberal Tradition? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 06:44:13 PM EST

I guess he's invoking Hartz's "The Liberal Tradition in America". And I thought that was a largely discredited concept because it improperly applied the way European post-feudal societies were analyzed to an analysis of America.

And it ends up with this bizarre notion that we've always been a consensus country. Which I think abolitionists and the founding members of the labor movement might have issue with. To name just two groups.

Though I guess members of the media might like to cling to this notion. They seem to love the idea of an non-ideological consensus country.

My First though, BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:01:55 PM EST

was that you were telling us for the administration's new programs

the "Not a Big Deal."

Speaking of inside baseball (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by kdm251 on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:11:19 PM EST

Are we sure Jennifer Palmieri didn't write that

Here is what Matt is really saying (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by esmense on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:23:49 PM EST

His real meaning is that the ideological debate among our elites really isn't of much consequence. That's because they share the same economic and class interests to a very large extent -- and those interests are well represented in the governing concensus as it now exists among both parties. Furthermore, the "debate" is mostly a potemkin exercise in which the voices of others whose interest really ARE in conflict with those of the elite have either been effectively locked out, or are represented only in caricature.

IF either party was very effectively representing the broader constituencies they depend on for votes (as opposed to just those they depend on for money) Matt and others wouldn't be so sanguine.

As it is, the Democrats do not represent their working class and minority voters well, but what representation they do provide to those constituencies does loom large within the context of an opposition party that's policies threaten them with actual and significant harm.

Those differences are big enough to matter to the Democrats base constituencies -- but still small enough to be "no big deal" to the beltway elites.

: I would agree with you, except (none / 0) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 01:03:49 AM EST

for that phrase "liberal tradition" he uses.
Sure, our GOP these days is liberal compared to, oh, say Francisco Franco, but I have little doubt they'd for his model if they thought they could get away with it.

Philosophy? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by lentinel on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:38:22 PM EST

I can't get too excited about whatever differences in "governing philosophy" might exist between the Obama administration and the Bush administration.

The realities of a ghastly similar approach to matters of war and peace, trickle-down economics, rendition, unlimited detention without charge or trial, support for the patriot act, the dissolution of the separation of Church and State - keep rearing their ugly heads.

As Obama proudly proclaimed during the beginning of his run for the presidency:

"The only bills that I voted for, for the most part, uh, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans or George Bush."

So, I guess the joke's on us, huh? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by Anne on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 08:09:10 PM EST

Here we've been thinking that it really mattered that we be different from them, and, golly gee, it turns out that it doesn't...

I'm starting to think that "they" are putting mood stabilizers in the water, such is the preponderance of "isn't it nice when we all get along?"

huh? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by pluege2 on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:07:58 PM EST

indefinite detention
black sites with likely torture
presidential ordered assassinations on citizens
Guantanamo
declaring everything state secrets

what has changed?

What has changed (5.00 / 7) (#17)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:39:18 PM EST

What has changed is that the Obama left is no longer all that concerned about those issues.


Exactly the point except (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by pluege2 on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:02:10 AM EST

if you go with the adage 'actions speak louder than words' you can justifiably draw the conclusions that obama-as-worse-than-bush on civil and human rights (obama added the nice touch of the presidential ordered assassinations) is the true obama and the prior words he spoke contrary to his current actions were all BS. So in actuality, obama didn't change, he lied. When trying to get elected he talked progressive while never intending to be progressive.

For progressives, obama is a Trojan Horse


: Obama Left and Bush Right (none / 0) (#29)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:10:39 AM EST

are simply cults of personality. what's that word for someone that's perfect? Oh yeah, 'Messiah.'

I began writing a response to ABG to outline (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:30:32 PM EST

some of the history of the liberal-conservative differences of the past 120 years, but after 1,000 words I decided it was too long. Suffice it to say that there are rich and powerful people who want to be richer and more powerful, and then there are folks who don't want a plutocracy. The ones who don't want a plutocracy have been without much influence or power since 1980.

The useful idiots-- single issue folks, like Charles H. Brent and Hamilton Wright wanted to make sure white women weren't coerced into sex with blacks or asians through cocaine or opium, and that blacks in the south were becoming 'overly violent' because cocaine was becoming popular. This was 1910.

Since then, various issues-- immigration, 2nd amendment, reproductive rights, all have been embraced by different useful idiot groups.

Those groups have proven easy to manipulate. Promis not to put gun owners in jail, but punish the dope fiends who rob and kill, or promise to eliminate tobacco smoking through taxes and local laws-- always a group ready to support it.

Those groups support and continue to support the political party that supports their view with money and votes. Doesn't matter what the party does... once supported, institutionally the support continues.

So darned few people even know the history of labor or the history of the robber barons or the history of drug use and laws in the US, or labor...

It's no wonder there appears to be no difference. It's hidden. The media is as liberal as the corporations that own the outlets allow it to be. A dead blonde girl or a missing blonde girl is much more salaciously newsworthy than policy or history.

Too many ahistorical useful idiots, ABG, and not enough folks who look for what's behind, or what's underneath.

There's a lot you touch on here (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by sj on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 07:52:02 PM EST

Since then, various issues-- immigration, 2nd amendment, reproductive rights, all have been embraced by different useful idiot groups

They're called "wedge issues" and nobody even blinks. Think about that. Right out in the open they are declared to be issues meant to divide. And divide they do.

Immigration: Us and Them
2nd amendment: Hands Off Our Guns. They protect us from "Them"
Reproductive Rights: Screaming Life Is Sacred!!! Until the child is actually born, that is.

So darned few people even know the history of labor or the history of the robber barons or the history of drug use and laws in the US, or labor

This one leaves me in despair. Worked for a company that had a partially unionized work force. I was astounded when one of my more liberal colleagues started spouting the company line and whining about the "demands of the union" not wanting their medical benefits to decline and holding fast during contract negotiations. After all, the non-union employees had seen their benefits suffer. Why shouldn't the union members?

You should have seen the shocked look on his face when I told him that instead of just complaining about his loss of benefits, he should be out there supporting his union brothers and sisters. I reminded him that everything good for labor had originally come from unions. Child labor laws, overtime pay, 40 work week, paid vacations, medical benefits, a safe work environment. Everything he took for granted. All fought for and hard-won. And you have to keep fighting for them because the robber barons are still out there. Still intending to rob from the poor. And to do that, they need more helpless, undefended poor people.

I have no idea if I changed his mind at all or gave him food for thought, but he didn't ever again complain about unions to me. And we're still friends. :)

I've always understood that you have to take a stand and actually defend your principles. Agitate and work to make changes for the better. What I didn't understand when I was younger is that you have to keep fighting to maintain that line. You have to keep standing up. You have to stay counted. Because entropy is a powerful force and it doesn't apply just to the physical world.

This country is so vary large. One person feels so insignificant. It so very important to have representation that you can count on. So it's back to square one. That's what the radical right did. It took them a long time, but look what they accomplished. They were mocked and marginalized. But they started by changing the debate. By voting in sheriffs and school board reps. And look where we are now.


Cripes (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by sj on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:04:50 PM EST

"vary large"

I've decided it means both "very large" and "large and varied".


: If spelling gets (none / 0) (#44)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:39:30 PM EST

graded on this site, I'm in a lot more trouble than you, my friend!

Interesting stuff Jeff (none / 0) (#32)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:35:01 AM EST

Thanks for that.


No "fundamental" difference (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Andreas on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 11:50:38 PM EST

There are differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. But there is no "fundamental" difference. Both are ruthless defenders and representatives of American capitalism and imperialism and is for that reason it is necessary to oppose both.

: Not too far from the mark..... (none / 0) (#24)
by Rojas on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 02:40:49 AM EST

Which is a phrase I guess I should apologize for. As this statement, or any statement I suppose, which one might conceive of accuracy in regards to a trajectory is verboten I believe.

I wish (none / 0) (#9)
by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 07:33:43 PM EST

I had a better grasp on the history of libertarianism and and conservativism to really understand how far their current main stream incarnations are from their most extreme mainstream forms. I have two thoughts:

I see Yglesias point but think that I disagree for the reasons BTD set forth. There are some fundamental differences an they are real.
I do agree with him, however, on the demonization side of things. I am often struck by how often republican policies are framed as the rich protecting their pot of gold. My gut tells me that the majority of the right deeply believes that their tax and fiscal policies are good, not just for their own pockets, but for us all. Whenever a hawk type tells me that I want a shrunken military and greater faith in the UN because I hate America, I am furious. I imagine the guy who wants lower taxes on the rich becaue he sincerely believes that it is the best way to raise the overall standard of living is equally angry at being accused of caring only about the wealthy.

I think there is some equivalence there. The right is obviously much worse (and has a real mean streak I think) but I believe there are some folks (Chris Christie comes to mind (spelling?)) who you look at and get the feeling that they really believe their way is the best way. The motivation isn't their own pocketbook but a sincere attempt to improve the country in the way they believe to be most efficient and effective. Now I think they are completely wrong, but when someone accuses them of only trying to help their corporate buddies, I never really feel completely comfortable.

There are some souls on the other side of the aisle that (in good faith) think they have the correct answer. That's the point I believe Yglesias is trying to get at to some degree. The conservativism of the Tea Party (eliminate all government!) has distracted us from the conservative base that liked what Clinton did and was fairly reasonable. Just like there were Reagan democrats, there are a lot of Clinton repubicans out there who don't deserve demonization for their ideas.

Yglesias is right about many of them. We may not be as far apart as you would imagine.

Reading your comment, the one name (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Anne on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:04:22 PM EST

that kept coming to mind was "Dick Cheney."

I'm sure he sincerely believed his policies would be best for the country, and hey - he has a wife and kids and grandkids who love him to pieces - so how bad, really, could he be?

And by the way - "the conservative base that liked what Clinton did and was fairly reasonable?" Who were those people?

It's one thing for us to "get along" with our neighbors and co-workers, with whom we may not always agree on matters of politics and policy, but it's quite another for those elected to the Congress and the White House to approach their jobs the way they would a lovely invitation to lunch.

We need them there working for the best policies, even if that means they have to take the gloves off to do it.


No (none / 0) (#30)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:30:43 AM EST

I actually think Cheney was really evil.


: But does Cheney think he's (none / 0) (#33)
by observed on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:53:46 AM EST

evil? That's the point. After all, many people believe Obama is evil. It's a weak criterion.

hitler had a female german shepard, (none / 0) (#46)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 02:27:39 AM EST

goldie, that he loved to pieces, and loved him back. he poisoned her, in the bunker, to check and ensure the cyanide worked, before committing suicice himeself.

ABG, I agree many of them are (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 01:12:50 AM EST

sincere in their beliefs, but it has jacks**t to do with what's going to make life better for the vast majority of them. Look up the phrase "social darwinism" sometime. That's what these people believe in their gut-- if you're poor, it's because you're inferior and it's right and just that you should remain at the very bottom of the heap, supported by charity, not the public weal.

The only GOPer I ever saw who did sincerely and genuinely believe "da market" was the way to make life better for everbody, not just the superior ones, was Jack Kemp.

If you think Chris Christie believes that, I'm sure there are bridges in NJ I could sell you.

As for the history of American right-wing politics, there was a fabulous book about that written a few years ago. Can't remember the name off the top of my head, but I can find out tomorrow and will come back and post it in another reply to you, where you can find it in your own "comments" section on this blog if you want.

As a person of a "certain age," i can certainly tell you that what's mainstream among Republicans today was no more than the inconsequetial fringe lunacy of the tiny John Birch Society when i was growing up.


: yep, yep (none / 0) (#45)
by sj on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 03:04:04 AM EST

what's mainstream among Republicans today was no more than the inconsequetial fringe lunacy of the tiny John Birch Society when i was growing up

Clinton (none / 0) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:15:14 PM EST

republicans no longer exist. They are probably independents now and the white working class voters that helped put Clinton in office twice have abandoned Obama in droves.

Obama's base of African American voters and creative class voters is not enough to sustain him.


Actually (none / 0) (#31)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:33:48 AM EST

It is. The democratic party is the party of the minority and has been for some time.

The demographics are now at a stage where Obama can lose the white male vote and win.


"White working class voters" ... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Yman on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 10:00:00 AM EST

... is not the same thing as "white males". (Wow - could you imagine how they would have twisted that comment if Hillary had said it? Oh, ... wait ...)

The demographics are now at a stage where Obama can lose the white male vote and win.

What do you mean they're now at the stage where Obama can lose the white male vote? Besides, it's not a question of winning or losing the white male vote, it's a question of how badly the Dem candidate loses them. No Democratic candidate for POTUS has won the white male vote since Johnson in 1964. In the four elections between 1988 and 2000 the Democratic nominee won only 36 percent, 37 percent, 38 percent and 36 percent, of the white male vote.

The fact that Obama (or any Democratic candidate) can win without winning the white male vote (as opposed to white, working-class vote) is a platitude. The real question is can Obama afford to lose them by the numbers he's looking at now - or, more importantly, 21 months from now?


Answer (none / 0) (#37)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 07:34:02 PM EST

Yes. He can. He can win with his numbers being where they are with white male voters.


: He "can" win (none / 0) (#41)
by Yman on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:02:58 PM EST

That's great.
Get back to me in 21 months when those numbers will actually mean something.

: None (none / 0) (#47)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:49:08 AM EST

other than our former African American attorney general here in GA said that if the party cannot get back working class voters it cannot win period. Clinton split the white working class voters with the GOP and that's how he was able to win. Obama's win in 2008 was an anomaly much like Carter's in '76. He has not been able to sustain that coalition as evidenced in the midterm elections. There is no reason to believe right now that he has the demographic numbers to sustain reelection.
BTD did great analysis of these demographics back in '08.
You're are also forgetting the massive defection of women that has happened under Obama too.

White male vote (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by MO Blue on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 10:03:10 AM EST

Seems if IIRC the Dems in addition to losing the white male vote they lost the white woman vote in 2010. How did that work out for the party?

Also not sure how long the Dems are going to retain the Hispanic vote on unfulfilled promises of future actions while increasing the number of deportations.


The GOP (none / 0) (#38)
by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 07:35:40 PM EST

has taken care of the hispanic vote for a generation.


: The CW in 08 was that the GOP (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by MO Blue on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:09:46 PM EST

was going to be dead for decades. Took Obama and the new Democratic Party less than 18 months to rehabilitate the Republican Party and give them control of the majority of the states and majority control of the House.
Don't think the Hispanic vote is a given unless the Dems do more than talk.

: ABG, Don't count your chickens (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by Politalkix on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:30:49 PM EST

till they are hatched. This type of arrogance is not good, this is meant as constructive criticism.
If the GOP puts up conservative Hispanic candidates, your assertion will be tested severely. Please refer to exhibits such as Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and others.
Don't forget that Jeb Bush can also run.

And here it is (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by sj on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 07:55:46 PM EST

Eventually, everything ends up being all about Obama's re-election.


: Yep (none / 0) (#43)
by Yman on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 08:06:55 PM EST

For some, at least.

BHO (none / 0) (#51)
by Politalkix on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:46:27 PM EST

still has a problem with white working women voters that BC did not. This has to get fixed for BHO to get re-elected. Even if he cannot win a majority of the white male vote (no Democratic candidate since LBJ has done that), BHO has to keep the loss to a minimum to get re-elected.
Also everything shouldn't be about his re-election at this stage. I know that many voters who turned out for him in 2008 did so because he told them that he would do what was right for America, even if it meant that he would not get re-elected. They would get very turned off with this constant emphasis on re-election.


Are you suggesting that Obama (none / 0) (#26)
by observed on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 06:25:47 AM EST

has something in common with Alan Greenspan? Libertarianism??


libertarianism and + conservativism (none / 0) (#36)
by the capstan on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 07:10:29 PM EST

Are you sure you meant libertarianism instead of liberalism? My eyes may well be messing me up tonight. But I recall that a few years back my 'libertarian' son-in-law voted for Arnold, and Arnold is not usually called a liberal (tho' he's done pretty good lately, I think).


mullah omar? (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 08:48:55 PM EST

methinks mr. yglesias has fallen down a deep, dark hole of stupid. sadly, that can't be fixed. just dress him in leathers, and he can be the motorcycle "village person".

Giggle (none / 0) (#18)
by me only on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 09:41:54 PM EST

but the idea that there are not fundamental differences of governing philosophy with the Bush Administration strikes me as one of the dumber things written in some time

And from this morning:

This is possibly the stupidest article I have ever read.

: Actually (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by cal1942 on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 10:18:28 PM EST

there is a lot of really stupendous stupid going on.
I've used the superlative over and over again because the stupid just keeps getting worse.

Yglesias's bread is sure to (none / 0) (#25)
by observed on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 06:24:07 AM EST

remain liberally buttered by conservatives in coming years. Is he any relation to Susan Estrich,btw?

Is Markos's name going to (none / 0) (#27)
by observed on Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 06:36:08 AM EST

show up on any assault rifles soon? If not, I say "You lie!" to MY

I think (none / 0) (#48)
by lilburro on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:43:15 AM EST

the post over at Lawyers Guns and Money by SEK is useful. There's nothing wrong with bloggers doing some soul-searching I guess, but starting with the premise that "both sides do it" is inaccurate. MY's response to whether he "contributes to the devil shift" should've been a firm HELL NO. The GOP uses an entirely different type of rhetoric on an entirely different level than Democrats do. Half of it is just complete speculation, Glenn Beck style - "Why am I the only one asking this question????"

If someone as smart as Matt doesn't bother to point the differences out, we're not really going to get anywhere when it comes to the terms of the political debate.

Not A Big Deal

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment