More on Palin’s Speech
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com was 100% correct when he wrote the following:
With last night’s cheerfully vicious speeches from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, the Republicans did what they always do in order to win elections: they exploited raw cultural divides while mocking, belittling and demonizing Democratic leaders. Yet again, they delivered brutally effective and deeply personal blows to the Democratic presidential candidate grounded in the same manipulative and deceitful yet very potent themes they’ve been using for the last three decades.
Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited “negativity” and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.
The derisive attacks on Obama’s character last night were exactly what Democrats decided — yet again — that they would studiously avoid at their own convention when discussing John McCain. On the third night of the DNC — after Biden spoke but before Obama spoke the next night — I wrote:
More politically damaging still is the absence of any truly stinging attacks on John McCain. Even Joe Biden’s speech — billed as the “attack dog” event — almost completely avoided any criticisms of McCain the Person, who will emerge from the four days here as a Wonderful, Honorable, Courageous Man — a friend to Democrats and Republicans alike — who just happens to be wrong on some issues. The Republicans will spend the next four days mercilessly ripping Barack Obama’s character to shreds, as they did to John Kerry in 2004. . . .The GOP’s attacks on Kerry in 2004 were mocking, scornful, derisive, demonizing and deeply personal — in speech after speech — and they were also highly effective. They weren’t the slightest bit deterred by the fact that Kerry was a war hero who was wounded multiple times in Vietnam while George Bush and Dick Cheney. . . . weren’t. Has there been anything remotely approaching those attacks on McCain by any of the prime-time Democratic speakers?
The GOP assaults on Barack Obama will be — have already been — even more vicious and personalized, which means by the end of their Convention next week, John McCain will be, by all accounts, an honor-bound, principled and courageous patriot (who, at worst, is wrong on some issues), while Barack Obama will be some vaguely foreign, weak, appeasing, super-ambitious, exotic, empty-headed, borderline un-American liberal extremist. Democrats seem to be banking on the fact that the agreement which most Americans have with their policy positions, along with widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of things, will outweigh the effects of this personality war — a war which they, yet again, have allowed to be one-sided.
None of this is to say that the GOP attacks will enable them to win the election. It is quite possible that enough Americans this year are so alienated from the GOP brand that they are now largely immune from these kinds of substance-free personality assaults, that they won’t be blinded by cultural tribalism and personality appeals into handing this political party an additional four years of power. But these tactics have worked in the past because cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think — in general, they’re more powerful than rational assessments of policy positions or even one’s self-interest — and the Democrats’ gamble that they can win this election without really engaging those issues, while allowing that war to be waged in a one-sided manner yet again, is a true gamble.Even today, fresh off of watching Sarah Palin rip Barack Obama’s face off using the most intense forms of derision and condescension, Joe Biden — Obama’s “attack dog” — went on The Early Show and said he was “impressed” with Palin’s speech:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: How do you think your Republican counterpart did here last night?SEN. BIDEN: Well, my plane was landing. I only caught the last two-thirds of the speech, but I was impressed. I think it was a skillfully delivered political speech with confidence and directness and so I think she did what she was supposed to do. I was impressed.
I was also impressed by what I didn’t hear in the speech. I didn’t hear a word–didn’t hear the phrase middle class mentioned, I didn’t hear a word about health care. I didn’t hear a single word about what we’re going to do about the housing crisis, college education, all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now. I didn’t hear the words Afghanistan or Pakistan where al-Qaeda lives and bin Laden resides, so I also, you know, there was a deafening silence about the hole that the Republicans have dug us into and any specific answers to how the McCain-Palin ticket is going to get us out of that hole.
What Biden said was arguably wise (attacking Palin personally — as opposed to McCain and/or Palin’s ideology — is a stupid strategy). Biden’s remarks were also all true, as far as they went. Palin’s speech — indeed, the entire GOP Convention — was almost entirely bereft of substance and “issues.” But it is that way by design.The Republicans are well aware that they can’t possibly win the election if it is even partially decided based on issues. They need and intend to win despite the fact that Americans hate their positions on the issues, and to do that, they want to ensure that a majority of Americans love and respect the strong, honorable, principled, culturally familiar all-American mavericks John McCain and Sarah Palin (even if they don’t agree with them on everything) while strongly disliking that wishy-washy, snooty, foreign, exotic, self-absorbed Eastern elitist Barack Obama (even if he says the right things on issues).
Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country’s dislike of Republican policies. This year is indeed different — dissatisfaction with the Government is higher than ever before, the GOP is as discredited as a party can be, and Obama is a more effective candidate than those who preceded him — but the attacks last night were only the beginning, not the end. If John McCain remains — even from the mouths of Democrats — the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.
Doc:
Can you please be specific: which “Republican” policies do the American people “despise”?
“They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda.”
– who REALLY turned this into a referenda on personality? It’s all Obama has been running on for the past year… if anyone is to blame for RUNNING ON PERSONALITY… it’s Obama.
“by the end of their Convention next week, John McCain will be, by all accounts, an honor-bound, principled and courageous patriot (who, at worst, is wrong on some issues), while Barack Obama will be some vaguely foreign, weak, appeasing, super-ambitious, exotic, empty-headed, borderline un-American liberal extremist.”
– Excellent foresight, by the way. Seriously… I’m envious.
“The Republicans are well aware that they can’t possibly win the election if it is even partially decided based on issues.”
– I’m going to have to disagree with you here… America DOESN’T want universal health care and they don’t like loosing wars… don’t like high taxes, and they DONT want to drive around in tiny cars… all of which are ISSUES about which democrats do not mirror the public will.
You are right about one thing… People ARE dis-satisfied with the government… and Obama is not going to win promising them MORE AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT.
Joel -
Are you suggesting that Barack Obama hasn’t been talking about policy? You are saying that all that he has done is smile and say vote for me?
Losing a war. No but getting out of Iraq without losing any more troops or money. Yes. Higher taxes for who? Lower taxes to everyone making less than $250,000 per year (couples) or $125,000 (single). So, more than 90% of Americans will support and will benefit from that. I don’t know what you are talking about small cars. Lexus has an SUV hybrid. BMW has a 7 series that runs on hydrogen.
No one wants bigger government. No one. Barack Obama has stressed getting rid of programs that don’t work. Cutting the size of government. As a matter of fact, the size of government decreased under Clinton and has grown under Bush. So, again another reason to vote for Dems.
Thanks for your comments.
Chris -
I would serve up an unnecessary war as a policy that Americans hate.
Neither conservatives or liberals really care about the size of government. Conservatives want more expensive prisons and more intrusions on privacy. They also want more costly wars and a more bloated military. Liberals want more government assistance to middle class and poor people and more infrastructure spending.
One example: no one can honestly say they are against “big government” and at the same time want the government to intrude into something as personal as the decision on whether or not to end a pregnancy.
In the real world, it’s not the size of government that matters. It’s the way government is used that matters.
Doc:
1) “Unnecessary” “War” that “most” Americans hate? What is your basis for this statement? How many is “most”? What “war” are you referring to? How do you define “unnecessary”? Are all wars unnecessary? Or, are only some wars unnecessary? If you are referring to the skirmish in Iraq/Afghanistan, if I can combine the two, how can you claim that “most Americans despise” them, yet our all volunteer Armed Forces continues to see record enlistments every year? Wouldn’t your quip, if true, suggest that there would be less volunteers for our Armed Forces, certainly not record numbers? In the light of this evidence, can you justify the veracity of your statement?
2) In the event those questions are answered satisfactorily, my original question asked for specific policies. Your answer suggested that there is only one conservative policy that Americans despise. Is this the case?
Your first statement bothers me because it is vague, and you do not present any factual precedent to support your conclusion. You offer a conclusion with no exploratory statements.
I come here looking for a “why”.
Frankly, Doc, I frequent liberal sites because I am curious as to how leftists, like yourself, arrive at your conclusions, even though it seems to me that when looking at a given issue objectively, I follow the logic and information available and almost always arrive on the conservative side of the issue. Not all, mind you, but most. You can imagine my wonder at liberals: how did you guys miss the boat? Or, have I missed that famed left turn at Albuquerque? In looking for answers, visiting your blog is a science experiment for me, with you as the subject. These questions I ask aren’t meant to frustrate you, as you may be feeling while reading this, but an honest attempt to drill down into the hows and the whys of your political identity.
Help me understand, Doc.
It might not substitute for the doc, but I’ll try to provide an answer to your questions,Chris…
1)
Nice point about the necessity of war, but what your suggesting is that a rise in people signing up for the armed forces may be used evidence of their justification of a conflict, which to me seems just as presumptuous as saying that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary war. To my knowledge most people sign up because they either need the money or because they want to make a difference: being blue collar and/or idealistic doesn’t imply that you justify the act of war. I guess what doc is trying to say is that Americans don’t like seeing a lot of boxes covered in flags being unloaded at the airport…the war has left it’s scars on society and those are beginning to show on the surface.
Oh, and whether it’s still the war on terror or not, I would not refer to it as a skirmish…when even a country as the Netherlands loses 17 troops (yes, I’m writing from the legal-weed-and-gay-marriage-nation) I think it can be definded as a conflict at least…
2)
Not living in the states, I guess I’m not fully entitled to answer this, but it is a fact that a lot of mortgage speculation and war efforts lead to a lot of economic depression. It is also a fact that the war on terror (or whatever it is now…) has cost the government over 552 billion dollars (those counters that tell us how much the us government is throwing of to bad were a liberal wiener idea - checking what your government spends: as befitting a modern democracy). Logically this should mean a lot of budget cuts on other departments, not to mention that whoever becomes president, will have to raise taxes just to avoid bankrupcy….anyway, that my take on that.
3 Granted, no solid evidence is directly provided by the doc to support his theories, but it’s not like yours is more substantial. Heck, even mine is shoddy. So, neither of us is making a good case here, but try the senate or congress for one…such is politics.
I’m curious though, what your “scientific-experiment” entails. Are you suggesting we’re test lab mules (yes that’s pun) to you (no offense)? Just want to know your angle is on this.
Then there’s this logic thing: as far as I know that usually is an assuption-of-logic-thing. Most leftist look at is from a perspective comparable to yours (only difference being a right turn). We don’t have to get it, but it’s just that way. I don’t even get the only true logic in this world - mathematical logic - which can actually be proved by scientists.
Please, don’t think we are frustrated by these questions…they’re a good thing really. Nothing like a bit of critique to reflect on your own modus operandi. So thanks are in order, I guess: thank you.
I hope this makes a solid contribution to the response
EC,
President Clinton was able to reduce government spending largely by drastically cutting military expenditures thanks to the end of the Cold War. The so-called ‘peace dividend’. Pres. Clinton was also working with a GOP-controlled Congress from 1994-1998, so they probably deserve some of the credit as well. The decreases in discretionary spending relative to GDP are simply of function of the math involved. President Clinton signed into law a cut in capital gains taxes and NAFTA, the first unlocking substantial investment capital, and the second spurring trade and creating jobs. Both ultimately led to increased growth in GDP, faster than the rate of spending. The Federal budget still grew (in nominal terms). You are correct to point out that growth continued under Bush.
As for Senator Obama’s tax cuts, roughly 40% of the populace pays zero in federal income taxes. Thus is it disingenuous to say we will “cut” the taxes of those currently not paying anything. Senator Obama seeks to expand the EITC and provide larger rebates to those already paying zero in taxes. This is not a tax cut, it is government spending. Since he apparently intends to fund this spending through higher taxes for upper brackets, this amounts to redistribution of income at best. At worst, it is welfare. It sure isn’t a tax cut.
libhomo,
That’s a good distinction you make regarding how government is used versus the actual size. I would argue that a large(r) government is more apt to be used in general, and thus more likely to be used poorly or inefficiently. Much like extra cash burning a hole in your pocket, I suppose. Thus, it probably in our best interest to limit the size of government in the first place, so as to remove the temptation for beaurecrats to misuse it. Politicians of all stripes have shown us they will spend like drunken sailors if we give them the chance. I say take the keys away.
Personally, I am for a limited government that vigorously enforces property and individual rights, provides basic services where the market has created a void (or competes with the market when they choose to get involved), and generally stays the heck out of the way and let people to live their life as they see fit.
Chris –
the latest statistics from the Pew Research Center state that 54% of Americans believe going to war in Iraq was the wrong decision. Only 38% of Americans believe that going to war was the correct decision.(I’m not sure who these 38% are but they’re clearly uninformed, in my opinion.)
As we sit here and debate economic policy, it is clear that spending $10 billion a month in Iraq has been a drag in our economy. Whether it is a major force or a minor force in our current economic woes can be argued.
Thanks for your comments. I’m sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
Mark –
You are right that President Clinton was working with a GOP controlled Congress for a significant portion of his presidency. There is no arguing this fact. But, President Clinton did submit balanced budgets for Congress to review and approve. President Clinton did cut the size of government. He did cut some of the government bureaucracy.
Redistribution of wealth work pretty well in new deal. We enjoy prosperity from 1945 and 1973. During this time frame, there was a massive redistribution of wealth. And for the most part the majority of Americans were better off than their parents.so, then I have been labeled, I’m thinking it’s a good thing.
Thanks for your comments.
EC,
The level of discretionary spending increased every year since 1990 except for one - 1996 during the Clinton presidency. See chart 2 on the link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/issuearea/Budget.cfm
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias, although this particular article appears pretty objective.
Balanced budgets were possible thanks to cuts in defense spending and enormous inflows into the Treasury due mostly to the cut in cap gains. Here’s a WSJ online article from 2006 the highlights the decline in spending relative to federal outlays:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009124
Certainly, a GOP Congress deserves some of the credit (blame?) for approving these cuts in military spending also, but my larger point is that President Clinton did very little to cut wasteful programs from the budget, as evidenced by the increase in discretionary (non entitlement) spending.
The post-war expansion was driven in large part by the enormous pool of labor returning from military service, cuts in defense spending which in this case was somewhat equivalent to looser monetary policy and the more efficient allocation of capital and labor back into the economy. Also, there was the setting of quantitative targets for money supply, after some folks noticed that had gotten them in trouble during the depression. Further, President Kennedy helped matters by authorizing the largest tax cut in history in 1961, including one on capital gains, and interest rates were generally low and stable. As you point out, growth was pretty even across income classes, but it was not due to punitive tax rates on the rich or income redistribution. It was thanks to the unlocking of resources that could then be dedicated to growth, instead of financing a war or rebuilding Europe. Unions also expanded during this time as well, and that probably played some role in the larger successes of the populace.
Spending $120 billion per year on Iraq is slightly less than 1% of our economic output and about 3.9% of our federal budget. It is also about half our discretionary spending figure. These numbers have all been quite higher in the past, particularly the 1960s (buildup to Vietnam, of course) and the late 1980s. It’s fair to argue that money can be better spent elsewhere (or not at all), but I don’t think it’s had any material impact on economic growth.
Mark –
I’m impressed with your knowledge and the volume of material that you write. I think that you would agree that overall the taxes were generally higher to the 1945 through 1973 than they are now. I think that we would agree also that the middle class was more comfortable in their position and had less anxiety about their economic future than we do today. Back in the day, it took only one income to make ends meet in the middle class. Today, most people in the middle class are using two incomes to make ends meet. Their buying power today is less than their buying power back in the early 70s. Their debt burden today is higher than their debt burden in the early 70s. Their savings rates are also different again better in the 70s than today.
There probably isn’t any one reason for this trend but yet several reasons. One of the reasons that I would argue would be the redistribution of wealth that FDR imposed. The ultra-wealthy that were seen at the turn of the century and into the 20s disappeared in the 1940s. This disappearance was secondary to many factors including an increase in income tax for the upper five to 10%. Also, a large estate tax was imposed. The combination of these taxes redistributed wealth throughout all classes in the United States.
I appreciate the reference to the heritage foundation. I find their research incredibly interesting. It cannot be discounted simply because it comes from a right-wing site. Some of it, is outstanding research.
I have donned my flak jacket and my Kevlar helmet.
EC,
Thanks for the compliment, I’m pleased that you find value in my posts. I’m enjoying civil discussion, even though we disagree on a few things. I assure you that a flak jacket and helmet aren’t necessary.
Regarding the “golden years” of the 1940’s-60’s, I agree with some of your assertions, but not some others. I’ll try to be systematic about this:
Tax rates: agree completely that rates were higher across the board relative to today. There were more brackets, and they ranged from 20-90%. In fact, we’ve had a top rate as high as 70% as recently as 1980.
Comfort level/anxiety: This is unprovable one way or the other, but let’s examine the situation a bit: We were coming out of the Great Depression and two World Wars. To have those items no longer staring you in the face would probably make the country feel better about propsects in general. I submit that your assertion is probably true, but that does not mean people actually WERE better off. In any event, the standard of living today is FAR better than it was in the 40s-60s.
One income to make ends meet: Yes and no on this one. Two income families were not the norm mostly because of social mores. Women weren’t considered equals in the workplace (despite ‘Rosie the Riveter’ et al during the war) and were expected to stay home and raise the kids. Living expenses were modest because the standard of living was lower than today. The suburbs were just sprouting up and people could get away from the hectic city life, own a track of land with a home, and have much lower expenses. Today dual income families pay for second/third cars, more expensive vacations, higher property taxes, and soaring college and health care costs, among other things.
Buying power: I don’t think we can make a blanket statement either way, and it’s interesting you picked the 1970s as your reference point. That is a period of very high inflation, of course, which skews calculations. I would argue that with the influx of foreign goods and technological improvements in manufacturing and developing new products, purchasing power is probably stronger now. More importantly, the standard of living today is far better than the 1950s.
Ultra-wealthy: I do not agree that the ultra-wealthy simply “disappeared”. Would you not consider the Ford or Dodge families wealthy? The Rockefellers or Kennedys? We might have taxed them more than we would today, but it didn’t suddenly bring them down to the middle class. Estate taxes were in place but were far less punitive than they are today. I’ll spare you the details, but the top of rate of 77% back then applied on estates over $50 million (about $640 million in today’s dollars - about .01% of the population).
I’ve already listed my thoughts on why things were evenly spread across the spectrum, but I would also point out that education was an issue also. By and large the vast majority of people didn’t attend college and most experiences came from the military. So everyone was on a pretty level playing field. With a large union membership, there wasn’t much competition to get ahead. Many went to work at a big company, punched the clock, and cashed their paycheck - end of story. However, even then, those that put in the extra effort and took the risk to start their own accounting/legal/medical practice did better than most. They may have lived modestly (so as not to “show off”), but they built wealth. I know because many of them are my clients today. Things were definitely different back then, but maybe not for the reasons we think. Today, I think you would agree, education makes a ton of difference. A high school education doesn’t get you very far, a college degree is expected. Within our lifetime, at least one advanced degree od some sort will be the norm. If you look at income brackets, they are highly correlated with education. This is intuitive. I won’t even begin to get into those other issues about why or what to do about it, I simply present it as a plausible reason why things were different then.
Regards