The Politics of Spite

[i_am_the_swammi]

Some thoughts I completely agree with , from the STL Post:

 

The Politics of Spite

Paul Krugman

10/06/2009

 

There was what President Barack Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago's bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

 

"Cheers erupted" at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine's staff, with the headline "Obama loses! Obama loses!" Rush Limbaugh declared himself "gleeful." "World Rejects Obama," gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

 

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

 

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: At this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation's two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they're against it — whether or not it's good for America.

 

To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

 

Now, it's understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush's attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

 

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: They argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

 

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main GOP line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party's traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

 

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern GOP considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

 

But the Obama administration's plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the GOP opposes anything that might be good for Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

 

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

 

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else's right to govern.

 

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let's not even talk about the impeachment saga.

 

The only difference now is that the GOP is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

 

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the GOP will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

 

It's an ugly picture. But it's the truth. And it's a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America's real problems has to understand.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The Republicans are shameless. The Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

 

Not that anyone cares, but I just changed my voter registration to independent. I still agree with alot of the Democrat agenda, but I want it accomplished with fiscal prudence, a hand up and not a hand out, etc.

 

[WaterMan]

nice read

[i_am_the_swammi]

The Republicans are shameless. The Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

 

I'd agree with both these statements, to varying degrees.

[dmarc117]

like cre8 thread said, it goes both ways. the partisan bs is destroying our country.

[Caveman_Nick]

The Republicans are shameless. The Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

 

Not that anyone cares, but I just changed my voter registration to independent. I still agree with alot of the Democrat agenda, but I want it accomplished with fiscal prudence, a hand up and not a hand out, etc.

 

 

I would add that if the Republicans are practicing the Politics of Spite, the Democrats are practicing the Politics of Demeaning.

 

I am not affiliated with either party myself, having voted third party in the last presidential election and with no change to that course on the Horizon.

[gbpfan1231]

like cre8 thread said, it goes both ways. the partisan bs is destroying our country.

Agree here. Conservatives act with spite and liberals scream race. Which do you prefer? Have there ever been such crap on both sides?

[Boilerduff]

The sky is blue..

 

Politicians waffle....

 

It's the way it is.

 

For every inconsistance there is in the Repubs, there is one from the Dems and Pres Obama. I am sure it has always been this way.

 

The question becomes then, how do we as a country affect real change that makes sense. What we are doing now is just insanity.

[Redfish]

Krugman is among the most spiteful of the liberal hacks. Have you seen him on Maher's show? They deserve each other. Krugman has no credibility when he criticizes others for their partisanship.

[Perchoutofwater]

Krugman is an idiot. I was happy the Olympics isn't coming to the US because I didn't want my tax dollars wasted on it. It had nothing to do with Obama. I oppose health care reform for the same reason, It cost too damned much, just like I opposed Bush when he was pushing Medicare "D". BTW Grunge, you and I are more alike than you know. I'm actually fairly liberal socially with the exception of abortion, but am extremely conservative fiscally. You appear to be extremely liberal socially and fairly conservative fiscally. I just tend to base more of my decisions on the fiscal and you on the social. More than likely you and I would identify more closely with each other than we would with either of the two main parties.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Krugman is an idiot. I was happy the Olympic coming to the US because I didn't want my tax dollars wasted on it. It had nothing to do with Obama. I oppose health care reform for the same reason, It cost too damned much, just like I opposed Bush when he was pushing Medicare "D". BTW Grunge, you and I are more alike than you know. I'm actually fairly liberal socially with the exception of abortion, but am extremely conservative fiscally. You appear to be extremely liberal socially and fairly conservative fiscally. I just tend to base more of my decisions on the fiscal and you on the social. More than likely you and I would identify more closely with each other than we would with either of the two main parties.

 

I've grown tired of the conservative and liberal labels. I'd imagine at least 60% of the public falls in neither camp completely.I don't quite fall into the libertarian camp even though I am on the liberal end of the social spectrum and a bit more on the conservative end of the fiscal spectrum. I want a fiscally responsible government, regardless of the size. I want a government that works for the people and not for special interests. One that solves problems and assists the free market in being the best in can be. How did that quote Ursa uses go? A rising tide lifts all boats? We've got major challenges facing us and we've got children in office in Washington that have forgotten why they're there and have resorted to endless oneupmanship. That's got to change.

[AtomicCEO]

I oppose health care reform for the same reason, It cost too damned much, just like I opposed Bush when he was pushing Medicare "D".

 

Can you link me to the 15 threads a day you started on this, Mr. non-partisan moderate?

[Perchoutofwater]

 

Dems refuse to remove Rangel as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I'm sorry, but keeping Rangel is purely partisan, anyone that crooked should be removed. Point being it's all about the party, regardless of which party it is you are talking about. To pretend otherwise is just a joke.

[BeeR]

like cre8 thread said, it goes both ways. the partisan bs is destroying our country.

Yep. More specifically, it's the way most people today play this us-vs-them game and use their political party or affiliation (liberal or conservative) as this validation or identification of social status, and so pretty much ALWAYS align with their "side's" candidate or viewpoint or whatever, with zero objectivity. ie morons.

 

Speaking of which, lol @ that article - but if say Rush had done a similar article ripping the Dems, it would've likely been just as lame.

[bushwacked]

Here is what Perch and all his moderate socially liberal buddies do on the weekend

[Perchoutofwater]

Here is what Perch and all his moderate socially liberal buddies do on the weekend

 

I went to Washington to protest the unprecedented spending. I did not carry a sign or wear anything that mentioned any political party or elected official. I was protesting spending because we are running up a debt that is unsustainable. The shirt I wore to the rally said "Enough is Enough" on the front and "Taxed Enough Already" on the back.

 

I'd say I am fairly liberal when it comes to social issues that do not affect fiscal issues, with the one exception being abortion (though frankly I'd vote for an abortionist if I though he/she would and had a good chance of abolishing the income tax, and reducing government spending and intrusion to the pre-FDR era.

[bpwallace49]

Perch and Grunge you guys are hilarious . . .

 

"I am conservative fiscally and liberal socially" . . . . Do you think most of the US says "y'know, I want to piss away as much money as possible and then enact a severely restrictive military-run junta that suppresses individual liberties"

 

I am willing to offer that 99% of the US considers themselves to be "conservative fiscally and liberal socailly" . . .but their voting record tends to differ from that.

 

That being said, that article does a good job of vocalizing what a lot of sentiment has been lately. It is sad that politics in general is this dirty . . . .

[evil_gop_liars]

, but I just changed my voter registration to independent.

 

 

You Bill O'reilly can pal around now.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

You Bill O'reilly can pal around now.

 

 

:runsbacktodmvwebsiteandreregistersasdemocrat:

[i_am_the_swammi]

I went to Washington to protest the unprecedented spending. I did not carry a sign or wear anything that mentioned any political party or elected official. I was protesting spending because we are running up a debt that is unsustainable. The shirt I wore to the rally said "Enough is Enough" on the front and "Taxed Enough Already" on the back.

 

Did you wear the same shirt to Washington when Bush was President? cause, ya know, we had taxes then, too

[Pope Flick]

Can you link me to the 15 threads a day you started on this, Mr. non-partisan moderate?

 

 

I remember when perch had this as his avatar for weeks on end as well.

 

Point of fact, the WORST daily avatar of Bush was this pic or perhaps this one. Just as pissed at Bush yeah right...

[Perchoutofwater]

Did you wear the same shirt to Washington when Bush was President? cause, ya know, we had taxes then, too

 

No, but I bitched like hell when he passed Medicare D, and his other government giveaways. Now had he spent on the scale that Obama is spending and is contemplating spending, you bet I would have been there.

 

Our national debt currently stands at about $11,000,000,000,000 with a $300,000,000,000 annual interest payment. By 2019 the estimated interest payment on the national debt is $806,000,000,000. Who is going to pay for that chit? The rich? If we took the income taxes paid by every tax payer in the country for the next decade, we would not have enough money to pay off the debt even if you didn't add in the interest. This would also leave no money for funding government. That doesn't even consider the underfunded programs of Medicare and Social Security. Bush screwed us by giving us by giving us $17,200,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities with medicare part D.

A wise man once said "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." He also said we are "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.." Unfortunately this country has largely been ignoring this wise man for the last century or so. Now we have saddled our posterity with $11 Trillion in debt and almost an additional $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities with social security and medicare. As it stands right now every one of us and every one of our children will have to send the government $330,000 over our lifetimes, and that is if we put the breaks on now. So we should be complaining loudly about all government spending.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[Jimmy Neutron]

The Republicans and Democrats are shameless and fiscally irresponsible.

 

Fixed for accuracy.

[AtomicCEO]

No, but I bitched like hell when he passed Medicare D, and his other government giveaways.

 

Link?

[Redfish]

"I am conservative fiscally and liberal socially" . . . . Do you think most of the US says "y'know, I want to piss away as much money as possible and then enact a severely restrictive military-run junta that suppresses individual liberties"

 

This is funny stuff. Can't say I agree with you very often, but kudos on the well-crafted litotes.

 

In reality, the discussion of civil liberties defies political categorization. "Liberal" usually connotes BIG GOVERNMENT to conservatives, while "Conservative" tends to conjure images of the Christian right or military hawk. The crux of this, and most discussions lately, is really the role and reach of central government and the redistribution of wealth. This isn't about civil liberties.