Demagoguery Verses "Sounding the Alarm"

Republicans voted en masse for Paul Ryan’s budget. Ryan’s budget ends Medicare as we know it – as a government run guaranteed health insurance plan covering all senior citizens – and replaces it with government “subsidies” (a.k.a. “vouchers”) which seniors would use to purchase health insurance from private insurers.

Ryan’s plan is deeply unpopular. However, instead of defending the plan on its the merits, the vast majority of Republicans are complaining about Democratic “demagoguery” on the Medicare issue.

For the record, “demagoguery” occurs when a leader uses false (or misleading) and inflammatory rhetoric to secure popular support. Republican allegations that the Affordable Health Care Act contained “death panels” and constituted “a government takeover of heath care” were demagoguery - they were both false and inflammatory and were used to win an election. To the contrary, the Democrats’ allegation that Republicans voted to “end Medicare as we know it” is not demagoguery - it is a fair and accurate description of what Republicans did.

Of course, there is demagoguery on the issue. The commercial in which someone dumps a wheel-chair bound senior off a cliff could fairly be considered demagoguery by those who think Ryan’s policy will work. That is because the ad unfairly assigns a sinister motive to the policy’s supporters. But that is a far cry from Democrats pointing out that Republicans voted to “end Medicare as we know it.” That assertion is entirely true.

The key distinction between “demagoguery” on the one hand, and “sounding the alarm” on the other, is the truth or falsity of the speaker’s assertions. So, I’m sorry Republicans. If you’re going to vote for alarming policies, you should not object when your opponents sound the alarm.

Joe H.

Concrete verses Abstract

My optimism as a progressive rests on a single undeniable truth; progressive policies are popular. Conservative policies are unpopular.

I’m not talking about “conservatism” or “liberalism” as abstract philosophies of governance. In the abstract, far more Americans identify themselves as conservatives. But with respect to concrete domestic policies, except perhaps on law and order issues, Americans love liberal policies. They love Medicare, Social Security, and public education, each of which is deeply progressive, if not socialistic. Americans are pro-choice by a two to one margin. And a steadily growing majority of Americans now favor allowing same sex couples to marry.

Considered in the concrete, Americans favor liberal policies and reject conservative policies. Conservatives can sometimes win elections by effective rhetoric and demagoguery - “death panels,” “government takeover of health care” – both of which were lies. But when the truth comes out, Americans will embrace the Affordable Health Care Act’s regulations on health insurance companies and the individual mandate, both of which are, again, socialist in nature. These regulations will never be repealed.

This means that conservatives, for all their corporate money and religious right support, are always fighting at a disadvantage. They frequently win elections, but rarely get anything done. The one exception is tax cuts. But even here, most of their success is achieved by telling lies about who will benefit, or by championing fanciful (and demonstrably false) theories that tax cuts increase tax revenues.

When I say conservatives don’t get anything done, I mean things like privatizing Social Security and Medicare, or turning our public school system into a voucher system. Conservatives would love to do these things, but as soon as they are honest about their intentions, the public turns on them with a fury.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is the perfect example. The basic fact is that Ryan’s plan would abolish Medicare as we know it – i.e., as a government run (collectivist) insurance program covering all seniors - and replace it with a government “subsidy” for seniors to purchase health insurance from private insurers. Ryan’s plan saves money by indexing the proposed subsidies to the rate of inflation - which is very low - instead of the rate of rising medical costs - which is very high. In other words, the plan holds down the rising costs of providing healthcare to seniors for the government – or for all working non-seniors - by shifting those costs onto seniors themselves. By design, the value of the subsidies would diminish over time, and Medicare would ultimately “wither on the vine.”

Ryan’s plan is the epitome of anti-socialist, free market policy making. It relies on individual responsibility and the free market. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as strong advocates of individual responsibility and the free market system. These are deeply conservative virtues which are widely embraced in the abstract.

Yet Ryan’s concrete proposal is extremely unpopular.

Case in point.

Joe H.

The Nightmare of Undergraduate Prose

Here's the money quote from a college professor tired of reading undergraduate essays:

"I've stared at the black markings on the page until my vision blurred, chronicling and triaging the maneuvers I will need to teach them in 14 short weeks: how to make sure their sentences contain a subject and a verb, how to organize their paragraphs around a main idea, how to write a working thesis statement or any kind of thesis statement at all. They don't know how to outline or how to organize a paper before they begin. They don't know how to edit or proofread it once they've finished. They plagiarize, often inadvertently, and I find myself, at least for a moment, relieved by these sentence- or paragraph-long reprieves from their migraine-inducing, quasi-incomprehensible prose."

That's the experience of an undergraduate humanities professor in a nutshell. Trust me!

Joe H.

The Liberal Vision of America

"But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. ... Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments."

President Obama, Arril 14, 2011.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Cohn who, while discussing this passage, noted:

"If there is an essence of the liberal vision for America, that passage captures it. It's the idea that a modern, enlightened society promises economic security to all, notwithstanding illness, accident of birth, or age. The liberal vision is not an imperative to establish equality, as its detractors sometimes claim. But it is expectation that government will guarantee sustenance, peace of mind, and simple dignity--that the pursuit of these goals will bolster, rather than impede, freedom."

Amen!

Joe H.

The Evolution of a Preacher's Thought on the Sinfulness of Homosexuality

This short article is highly worth the 10 minutes it will take to read it. I particularly enjoyed it because, while not a minister, I traveled a very similar road in arriving at my current attitude about gayness and gay love. Is also describes the growing tension in the church on this issue in a remarkably lucid and compelling way.

Even if you don't share my conviction that homosexuality is normal (for homosexuals), morally neutral, and that gay love should be supported and celebrated within the context of traditional marriage, you'll learn alot from this pastor.

Joe H.

Cyber-bullying

My family has been discussing the issue of “cyber-bullying.” They are convinced that posting cruel and hurtful statements about someone online, or calling them names, or otherwise making fun of them, constitute cyber-bullying.

My position is that an online act can only be “cyber-bullying” if it first constitutes “bullying.” Making cruel hurtful statements about someone, calling them names, and making fun of them certainly qualify as harassment. But these acts, in and of themselves, don’t constitute bullying.

Bullying necessarily involves intimidation, threats, an attempt to create fear of harm, or to humiliate. A bully is not someone who is merely mean and hurtful, although bullies are mean and hurtful. A bully is someone who intentionally threatens and intimidates others in order to get his or her way - or to receive personal gratification from dominating another person. A jackass, however meanspirited and cruel, doesn’t do this.

This seems obvious to me.

Trouble is, I can’t get anyone to agree with me. Everyone in my family - and these are very intelligent people - insists that the acts described in the first paragraph are cyber-bullying.

So what? Am I missing something? If so, explain it to me.

I know its no big deal. The conceptual universe is not going to collapse if we fail to maintain the distinction between “jackass” and “bully.” But if there’s one thing I can’t stand its wilful conceptual confusion.

Joe H.

Tsunami Center - in Eva Beach

Whose bright idea was it to build the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Eva Beach?

Eva BEACH!

I've been to Eva Beach many times. I'd estimate its elevation to be about 5 ft. above sea level. The center is only a few hundred yards from the shoreline.

I see something like this and think to myself, "surely they must know something I don't." But you'd be suprised at how often that assumption is dead wrong.

Joe H.