Kevin Drum says that Paul Ryan is “just flatly lying” when he claims that his plan would give seniors the same sort of health coverage Members of Congress have.
This seems like an unnecessarily rude way to make the point. True, there is a difference. Under the Congressional plan the government pays 75% of the tab, leaving 25% for the employee. Those proportions are fixed even as health care costs rise. Under the Ryan plan the government will pay a pre-determined amount, which will grow more slowly than premiums, so in 2030 the government will be paying only 32%, leaving 68% for the insured.
In other words, the people covered under the Ryan play would pay two and a half times as large a share of their costs as Members of Congress pays.
But is it really fair or civil to call the claim that a plan under which people pay 68% of the tab is “just like” a plan under which they pay 25% of the tab a “lie”? When Kevin says “flatly lying,” or the WaPo awards Two Pinocchios, they’re contributing to the incivility that plagues American political life. As Ryan’s spokesman points out, it’s all a matter of what “just like” means.
Ryan wasn’t lying. He was … that is … he was just … ummm … you see, it’s a matter of interpretation … and if the CBO number … he was …
To Hell with it. He was, and is, lying. Like a rug. And any news story that reports his assertion without adding [This is not so.] is helping him lie.
(Malcolm): “Support for race-neutral laws meant opposition to Jim Crow. The progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson brought Southern-style Jim Crow legislation to the Federal government. Now, support for race-neutral laws is somehow “racistâ€.”
(Football): “…racism correlates to conservatism. If you can’t acknowledge that obvious fact, then it’s pointless to talk about why racism correlates to conservatism.”
You have to twist the definition of “racism” or “conservatism” to make this accurate. The KKK was the militant arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to the Federal government. Robert Byrd was a Democrat. Goerge Wallace was a Democrat. The Republican Party, a splinter of the Free Soil Party, originated in opposition to slavery. Martin Luther King was a Republican.
(Football): “Do you seriously think that Woodrow Wilson would have, today, supported affirmative action? Seriously?”
(Malcolm): “Jim Crow was affirmative acton, for white people.”
(Football): “It’s like you don’t even recognize that I asked a question, much less attempted to answer it.”
I answered your question. Furthermore, I addressed your assertion of a positive correlation between “conservatism” and “racism”. Historically, classical liberals (i.e., free marketeers,
“conservatives” in sloppy modern parlance) have supported color-blind law. Progressives were the racists. Exercise for the reader: during which administration did the Tuskegee Experiment occur?
“Care to deal with the historical evidence? Woodrow Wilson was a progressive Democrat. George Wallace was a Democrat. Robert Byrd was a Democrat. The KKK was the enforcement arm of the (Southern) Democratic Party.”
Malcolm, it is a tired trick to go back to Lincoln or Wilson to try and show that because democrats tended to be more racist in the past, that they are more so now. It’s silly to ignore the ways in which politics have shifted on race. Let’s stick to present-day, modern liberalism and conservatism. Historically, generally *everyone* was racist. “Hangers-on”, now tend to be conservative. Show me explicit racists who are also liberals. I could show you volumes that are conservative.
“opposition to State-mandated racial discrimination “cannot be said†(note the passive voice) to be due to racism either. ”
“Got a mirror? You’all been ignoring the historical relation between progressives and race-identity politics all through this discussion. We could broaden this to an international perspective. Consider the race-identity politics of the (German) National Socialist Workers’ Party.”
Yes, that’s a part of the history – and yet as I said, it was the entire society that was full of hate. It was the status quo. We are saying that the only people seemingly interested in maintaining that status quo tend to be (are all?) conservatives.
No one said it necessarily was. In principle one could of course oppose it for non-racial reasons. The original question was whether its opposition *might* be influenced by bias. Obviously Stormfront opposes it. My assertion is that there is a gradation between Stormfront and modern conservatism and liberalism that is much more gradual on the conservative side, considering the degree of modern racist expression on the right.
“In this world (of your imagining) BET is racist because it is for black people – no different than if there were a channel for white people (find one person who say so).
Google: BET is racist. I’ve encountered the argument numerous times.
[Or that black comedians making fun of white people is the same as white comedians making fun of black people.]
“Why isn’t it?”
Can you imagine what I might say? That there hasn’t been hundreds of years of oppression of black people – or women, or gays, or minorities, etc.! It’s common sense, no? I could expand, but it seems a waste of time. In case your knowledge of history is what’s mystifying you, imagine whether a Nazi joking about Jews would be the same as a Jew joking about Nazis. Does that move you at all?
“You keep insisting. [on the correlation]”. Yes, and provided links, etc. You haven’t.
“If that’s not “racist†(I don’t think so), why call “racist†a cab driver’s refusal to pick up a young black man at night? Or an employer’s preference for his own tribe? ”
See previous comment on historical context.
Brett: “In reality, liberals like to imagine that people who disagree with them are moral monsters who are entirely in agreement with liberals about what policies would advance the common good, and oppose liberal policies out of pure malice.”
I don’t think Ryan opposes Medicare out of “pure malice”. I’m not sure I think a pure malice is possible. I think he’s found the means to a successful career as a celebrity in advocating for the interests of the very wealthy, and has no concept of the common good, worthy of the name.
That Ryan is pro-plutocracy is a more important point than the no-news that, like most advocates, he shades the truth a bit in the interest of persuasion. He gave an analogy, which was qualitatively correct, but, maybe, quantitatively misleading. I say “maybe” because the quantity of premium support barely scratches the surface, when it comes to how terribly disadvantageous, and even life-threatening, Ryan’s plan would be to the elderly. Showing people that Ryan is an advocate, who shades the truth is not the critical issue. The critical issue — as far as I am concerned — is the pro-plutocracy agenda of Ryan.
Ineffectual media “liberals” like Kevin Drum are handicapped in their own ability to tell the truth by their continuing support of Obama, who has a pro-plutocracy agenda of his own. Their rage at the likes of Ryan reflects their own shame and weakness.
(Eli): “Yes, and provided links, etc.”
a) You have not provided a single link in this entire comment thread,
b) What’s “etc” that you have done that I have not?
(Eli): “Malcolm, it is a tired trick to go back to Lincoln or Wilson to try and show that because democrats tended to be more racist in the past, that they are more so now.”
That’s not the argument. I rebut the contention that “conservatism” is “correlated” with “racism”. I see no restriction to contemporary society in this. Furter, it only works with contorted definitions of “conservative” and “racist”.
(Eli): “It’s silly to ignore the ways in which politics have shifted on race. Let’s stick to present-day, modern liberalism and conservatism. Historically, generally *everyone* was racist.”
I wonder. Depends on definitions, again, I suppose. We have examples of multi-racial cultures in cultural crossroads like the Middle East. I expect that historically, people have been willing to intermarry and trade with anyone.
(Malcolm): “Got a mirror? You’all been ignoring the historical relation between progressives and race-identity politics all through this discussion. We could broaden this to an international perspective. Consider the race-identity politics of the (German) National Socialist Workers’ Party.â€
(Eli): “Yes, that’s a part of the history – and yet as I said, it was the entire society that was full of hate.”
Do you really contend that there was no difference between the Nazi program and other German parties?
(Eli): “It was the status quo.”
Far from it. The Nazis advocated hope and change.
(Eli): “We are saying that the only people seemingly interested in maintaining that status quo tend to be (are all?) conservatives.”
That’s the definition of “conservative”. But which “status quo”? The Post Office is as old as the country. The State-monopoly school system dates to the early decades of the 19th century. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is 47 years old.
(Eli): “‘Hangers-on’, now tend to be conservative.”
Circular.
(Eli): “Show me explicit racists who are also liberals.”
Ummm…
(Eli): “Racial prejudice is usually impossible to prove, as…almost *every* modern expression of racism is categorically denied. People simply *never* admit to racist expression.”
So you establish one standard of evidence for “conservatives” and another for “liberals”. You get simply to assume evidence of racism in opponents of legally mandated racial preferences and require from opponents evidence of racism in progressives that you admit is impossible to obtain, or that you write off as ancient history.
(Malcolm): “…why call ‘racist’ a cab driver’s refusal to pick up a young black man at night? Or an employer’s preference for his own tribe?’”
(Eli): “See previous comment on historical context.”
a) The cab driver and Jesse Jackson are contemporary, and motivated by contemporary crime statistics. It’s not ancient history that inclines people to avoid downtown Detroit or New Orleans after 11 p.m.
b) How come you get to play the trump “historical context” and I can’t? Again, you establish one standard of argument for yourself and another for the other side of this argument.
As to Stormfront, why call a KKK/Nazi organization “conservative”? The KKK was the militant arm of the (Southern) Democratic party. The National Socialist German Workers Party (NDAP, “Nazi”) party was explicitly socialist, not (classical, free market) “liberal”. You’re making a circular argument: Stormfront qualifies as “conservative” because it’s racist and Stormfront’s racism is evidence that conservatives are racist.
Sunny out. Time to mow the lawn. Tata.
Brett? You there?
Malcolm, you claim to have answered my question, but I can’t find it. It’s a yes or no question:
“Do you seriously think that Woodrow Wilson would have, today, supported affirmative action? Seriously?â€
In addition to answering, can you show me where you previously answered it?
Look. The problem is that we are fighting a minority who hates modernity (the fundamentalist foot soldiers) and who are being led by the oligarchs (extremely wealthy families and top executives in big businesses.) The oligarchs will present any lie that motivates the fundamentalists (which I suspect includes the libertarians.)
What we are seeing is the mindset of conservatives and religious fundamentalists. To them everything that happens occurs because someone intended it to happen. To them there are no unintended social forces!
If something bad happens to someone it is because that person did something to cause it to happen to him. People are not unemployed because there are no jobs. They are unemployed because they don’t want to work. Blacks are not kept from getting jobs and held back from promotions. They don’t want to work hard enough. This is not something said by an occasional crazy person. It is a core part of both American conservative politics and Christian fundamentalist religion.
The god symbol is included in this. If you cannot observe someone who caused the Earthquake – tsunami in Japan it still occurred because someone wanted it to. The need to personalize this malevolent intent is the source of the god symbol. That symbol represents the great “intender” who must exist when no single person can be blamed for their failings.
Very interestingly these individual guilty parties are always someone outside the conservative – fundamentalist tribal group. They can directly observe that those inside their personal tribal group did nothing to cause many of the bad things that happen to them. The great intender is also the protector of the members of the tribe. Only non-members are punished.
Obviously, though, people who cause their own problems will not stop causing their own problems unless they are punished. God forbid that someone (“the government”) should help them avoid the just punishment they are being given for their sins. Helping them will just encourage them. So government has to be prevented from helping “those people.”
It’s a part of the pre-scientific mindset. Before Isaac Newton there were no recognized absolutely predictably impersonal forces. Everything happened because some person or god intended it to happen. The conservative followers fear the coming of modernity, and the leaders are using those frightened people as foot soldiers to get the accommodation with government that will increase their personal wealth and power.
If you want to understand the conservative – fundamentalist mindset, read “Fundamentalism” by the Sociologist Steve Bruce (2000). That fact about there being no recognized impersonal forces prior to Newton is from Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s great new book “The Grand Design.” (2010) (Warning – the latter is a superb layman’s introduction to quantum theory. It’s better than “A Brief History of Time.”) The distinction between the leaders and followers is adapted from Bob Altemeyer’s book “The Authoritarians.”
“a) You have not provided a single link in this entire comment thread,
b) What’s “etc†that you have done that I have not?”
Sorry – A)I must have been thinking of another thread. I only provided one link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIu6kk4id3o to a modern-day example of an explicitly racist conservative. I mentioned others, however. Stormfront is entirely conservative. I’ll offer a few more… American Renaissance – from the front page promotion of an anti-affirmative action book “What is called “affirmative action†is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve “diversity,†it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites.” I could do this all day…. Christian Identity – from the home page “For liberals only: a caricature of a “liberal espousing “politically correctness” next to an anti-semitic caricature”… Council of Conservative Citizens – from the front page (amid a plethora of racist ideology) an advertisement for… “Lighthouse Literature” – “A bright light for the *white right*”. Google any of them.
OK, I’ll stop now. It would literally take me days to enumerate the right-wing, conservative, explicitly racist groups that exist today. You can keep muttering about Democrats over half a century ago though. It’s already a bad joke. This is what we on the left are afraid of. And like I said, these are only the *explicit* ones.
B) you have provided zero links to explicitly racist modern-day liberals.
(Eli): “Stormfront is entirely conservative.”
I looked them up, and they trace their origin and influence to the KKK (the militant wing of the Democratic party) and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis). So why “conservative”?
(Eli): “American Renaissance – from the front page promotion of an anti-affirmative action book “What is called “affirmative action†is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve “diversity,†it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites.—
a) Any policy which favors members of one group discriminates against members of groups not favored.
b) What does this say about their politics otherwise? Why are they “conservative”?
(Eli): “you have provided zero links to explicitly racist modern-day liberals.”
Read carefully:…
(Eli): “Racial prejudice is usually impossible to prove, as…almost *every* modern expression of racism is categorically denied. People simply *never* admit to racist expression.â€
Anyway, I don’t have to. My objection has always been to this assertion that “conservatives” are “racist”, without definition of either term. Seems to me if “racism” means using race as a consideration in how to treat people, then everyone is “racist” to some degree. If “racism” means a lack of compassion for a group that some policy affects, than I call all defenders of the US State-monopoly school system “racist”.
From your mouth to Robert Pear’s ears:
Proposal for Medicare Is Unlike Federal Employee Plan, by Robert Pear
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/health/policy/02medicare.html
“House Republicans say their budget proposal would make Medicare work just like the health insurance that covers federal employees, including members of Congress. But a close examination shows the two plans are very different…”