I really don’t have much to offer about the substance of Robert Reich’s most recent blog post. In it, the Clinton-era Labor Secretary chastizes his old friend HRH for going negative against Barack Obama in Iowa. In general terms, I agree that doing so plays into Obama’s “new brand of politics” leitmotif, even as I wonder what options the lady has – if what you’ve got isn’t working, well. Change it.
But what I found rather more interesting is the degree of intramural calumny spread about in comments. Conservatives may generally prefer one candidate over another, but it seems to me that you just don’t see the same degree of earnest vituperation between partisans of Guiliani, Huckabee and McCain (just to name three) as you do between those wedded to HRH on the one hand and the Obamanon on the other.
Any thoughts on why that might be?
HRH? HRC, surely – she hasn’t been crowned yet.
The folks on the left tend to treat politics as something approximating a religion, hence the ramped up emotion.
Maybe because the Clintons managed to destroy any potential unity in the Democratic party by the need to destroy anyone in their path in the pursuit of power.
I can remember Hillary saying that they would demonize anyone who disagreed with them. When Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) did so, he wound up on the outside. Any sort of constructive criticism was quashed.
While conservatives may have disagreements, they tend to be more civil; everyone gets their say, even if people don’t agree. I guess we’ll get to watch the left side of the political divide eat their own.
The Republicans can get pretty destructive and nasty about each other. I mean, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee are fairly polite about each other, but you should see what their backers say about Romney, and what Romney’s backers say about them.
It’s not pretty. Politics is not a gentleman’s sport, the way we Americans go about it.
As Ray says above, both parties can be pretty disgusting, and sometimes even vicious.
Remember the really ugly smear campaigns by Bush on John McCain and especially on his family in the 2000 campaign?
Yeah, but when Republicans disagree they don’t end up dead of “self inflicted” gunshot wounds in a DC park.
Jim C
Alla Vince Foster
Jim C
It gets vicious whenever there is real power at stake.
In business probably 3/4 of handshake deals will fall apart when there is a significant incentive for one partner to renege. In politics it’s closer to 100%.
I understand that political operatives can get nasty. Politics, as they say, ain’t beanbag.
But I’m operating from the presumption that many of the commentors are not a part of either campaign. Just committed partisans.
I guess my point is that I feel like – but can’t prove – that many on the right are waiting for the dust to settle before they decide whether to vote or stay home. On the left, it seems like many are already arranged in ranks.
I could be wrong – just haven’t seen many members of the rightside hoi-polloi manning the barricades as evidenced in the comments to Reich’s post.
Lex, I don’t recall the details, but I think our very first correspondence on this blog concerned the tendency of political ideology to become religion for the “godless” in some cases, resulting in differences of political opinion being seen as matters of morality/personal value. Perhaps that is in play here…
It is my opinion that Huckabee is unelectable. No way will a Baptist minister run our country for 4 years. I certainly hope that the Repubs get over their infatuation quickly.
Babs, I’m of the theory that he’s being “raised up” in certain circles only in preparation for burying him. I doubt he’s got much longevity in the primaries.
The Founders who defined the Presidency in the Constitution were thinking about George Washington. The definition of the office was written with him in mind.
We should try to elect people who resemble George Washington to be President.
I don’t think that anybody who is running for President resembles George Washington, very much.
I will now sign off and Drink Moar, as I wish to be numb when they come for me, numb, I tell you!
Lex,
Consider the importance of identity politics to partisans on the left. They assign great value to candidates based on race, sex, sexual preference and the like. Now for the first time we’re going to have either a black man or a white (bisexual?) woman representing the party that cares inordinately about such traits. This might explain some of the rancor in their effort to pick one over the other.
As for lefty politics serving as an ersatz religion for the godless, see Jonah Goldberg here and here.
I can’t speak for all, or even most on the right (in the right?), but I can say that I prefer any of our candidates (‘cepting that nut Paul) to anyone in that ‘other’ group!
It’s called ushering your resources for the fight ahead. I’ll make my choice and fund within my limited means when the time is right.
Most of it is not on my radar yet but watching them spill snake venom is just pure entertainment.
b2
I will take a shot at answering your question, although like the proverbial camel rented to cross the desert I expect to be stoned!!!
It is all in the prism used to examine issues and problems.
Conservative Republicans (ain’t any other kind, no more), presented with a problem, view its solution through a prism of myth driven ideological precepts. As such, the ideological precept is affirmed, the problem is trivialized, and unanimity is achieved.
Democrats (Blue Dogs to the right, HRC a few millimeters to the left of them, columnist Paul Krugman to the left of Robert Reich, and Bernie Franks really out there to the left) are not a homogenous group and have no underlying unifying myths. The prism aimed at a problem scatters the solutions, so that controversy will arise, and unanimity is hard to achieve.
Back to Robert Reich’s article, which Lex chose as a means to stimulate discussion. Two issues with long-term implications were examined: Social Security and Health Care, both being debated by HRC and Obama, generating controversy between them…
Social Security is a non issue for Republicans, they presented their solution, which was to privatize. The myth was private entities could do the job better; the ideology was the virtue of “small government”. Nothing much left to talk about, so Social Security is not open to debate for Republican candidates.
The status of health care has been endlessly examined, the conclusions remain the same. By any metrics, compared to other industrialized countries, our health care costs more, and produces worse results. A significant portion of the population is uninsured. The American population view health care as a major problem in their daily lives
For Republicans, any government intervention in health care is “socialized medicine”, and buries the problem under a variety of myths. The solution to this problem has been presented: the free market system works. Case closed, no need to debate other solutions to the problem.
Meanwhile, there is no unanimity in the Democratic camp as to how to tackle this problem, and thus the heat of debate. Every candidate takes a bite out of this apple, and every candidate tries to make the other choke on that bite…
So Lex, in answer to your complaint about the “right side hoi-polloi manning the barricaders as evidenced in the comments to Reich’s post.” What member of the hoi polloi, or indeed Republican candidate, is going to argue health care policy? Stick to the myth of gasp, dare I say, “socialized medicine”? And when in doubt, go for a swift kick to the gut: Jim C with the myth of Vince Foster, and Puddle Pirate with your hot of the press brand new myth, that women candidate is “bisexual”!!!
Full disclosure: My second born son came to the light of day while I was in the Navy. Did not pay a penny, thanks to the US Government. But that was a “benefit”, and as such did not count as “socialized medicine”.
RP, if I accept your noble narrative of myths vs cool rationalism, will you accept my observation of motes and beams?
Because, while that’s rather a handsome strawman you’ve constructed, with as ound (and no doubt gratifying) internal cosistency it doesn’t really answer the question posted. Mr. Reich, it’s true, debated policies. But his commenters by and large restricted their commentary to fulsome praise (Obama camp) or personal attack. Not so much a substantive debate as a schoolyard taunting.
Who on earth would read Reich for that, when dKos is so close at hand?
Once one person starts in, then others feel compelled to jump in, pile on, reply with vitriol spilling onto their keyboards, what have you. Regardless of the URL.
Emotions are epsecially high for this election for the Democrats. There’s the distinct possibilty that their nominee will be either a female or african american. Heady times.
For the Republicans? Some old white guy (ok, the youngest is Huckabee, at 52). Where’s the emotion in that?
Lex and friends …
In my travels around the Internet, I have been amazed that few if any of the political pundits watching the campaign struggles seem to have looked ahead to “what if” and “what follows.” What if Hillary succeeds in her campaign and is elected? What follows?
It’s my theory that Hillary is serving as a stalking horse for Billy Jeff. Does anyone, if they think about it, seriously suppose that when those two folks take over the White House once again, that Billy Jeff won’t be in charge? Come on. Pull the other one – it’s shorter.
Marianne Matthews
I have re-read your original post Lex, as well as those in the comments, and for the life of me I cannot figure out your “observations of motes and beams”. What to do, it has always been a problem for empty-headed strawmen, ever since Dorothy decided to tackle the wicked witch (who was probably bisexual and married to a man who liked “cigars”).
Baring the eternal cheap shot (see my full disclosure statement), any comment on Health Care policy requires at the minimum several paragraphs, with some presentation of data. Robert Reich’s knows this, and his post presented no data…
If “motes and beams” refers to the quality of the comments in Reich’s post, you will get no argument from me… At your urging I spent about 30 minutes reviewing the comments, and I found little to enlighten me on the problems we face.
I pulled up a chair, and bought some chips, and got into this post for one simple reason. You can mock the exchange between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters as schoolyard taunting, but the central question remains: Are we going to address the question of a health care system that by any measure is under performing?
The only Republican candidate who has raised the issue of Health Care is (gasp) the maverick McCain. Not your favorite Republican candidate, for he has questioned the use of torture, and tried to regulate money in political campaigns.
Rarely read dKos, and hardly ever the Reich blog. Do spend some time with Scott Horton (Harper’s Magazine blog), and of course Balkanization (a legal blog… warning: tedious, and you ain’t going to find two line comments.) I do read your blog Lex, love the Navy talk, and your photographs dazzle the old retina… But, pardon my elbows; there must be a somebody that questions some of your views.
Lets not obscure the issues that really count. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will examine the Bourmediene case. Which can be distilled down to eternal question, what kind of a nation are we…
Hey, RP. Sorry to send you off on a wild goose chase. I thought that my meaning would have been more plain. But it occurs to me that you may not know any actual conservatives in real life, so you mightn’t be sensitive to the notion that disagreeing with you on political topics does not in and of itself send us back to re-examine our foundational assumptions.
You see, when you write that conservatives are all bound up in our myths while other, more virtuous souls earnestly, rationally – and yes, passionately – try to puzzle out solutions to society’s more pressing problems, you may find that you put off those you would intend to persuade. “Myths” are very much in the eye of the beholder you see, and other peoples’ myths are always more offensive than our own. Motes and beams.
My opening statement on this particular post was that I had little to offer on Mr. Reich’s post itself, choosing instead to focus on the heat generated in comments. When you start your own blog you’ll have the liberty of choosing your own topics.
Having done so, you will occasionally cross swords with those who wish you had written about something else. I hope you will find it as illuminating as I do.
I am pleased that you drop in and listen to the Navy music, though. I don’t mind people who disagree, just those who are disagreeable.
Cheers.
Thank you for the clarification Lex, motes and beams it is… As your link to Salem the Soldier points out in its screed about “liberals”, myths easily merge into a belief system.
Time to pick up my chips Lex, and bow out of this thread. I will try to find a better word than myths, for combat between Liberals vs Conservative philosophy is not my cup of tea. The problem remains, a Health Care system that does not work for most of us.
Dear “Our” Paul,
No Flack! Promise. We Righties cultivate our Lefties at Lexxies!
re- “unanimity is achieved.”
Perceptive. Replace unanimity with “victory” though.
re Barney
I coulda swore he was a homogenous. Learn something every day.
b2
Paul and Thompson, by their public statements, seem to agree with me, principally speaking. However, I have doubts about their ability to tell other folks what to do, and have those other folks actually do same.
Now what scares me about Hillary, is that she seems to have no principles but that Hillary gets to tell everyone else what to do. And she’s good at that, and can get other people to go along with that.
The Fuehrer-Prinzip, ya know?
I hate Illinois Nazis.