It appears that the Obama Administration is off to a roaring start in its first hundred days. The man has managed to lead from the center, and he seems to be holding all of the credibility cards.
This is extremely bad news for Republicans and Conservatives.
If the Gentle Reader will recall, the original tactics have not worked out very well. Opposing everything that the Administration supports, screaming "SOCIALIST" really loud, and hoping that Obama gets recognition for everything proposed and passed have basically made Republicans look like the Hillbillies and neighborhood Yard Nazis that most of them are.
One will recall what a Yard Nazi is: a white male between 45 and dead who drives a full-size American sedan, and calls the cops any time he sees a neighborhood kid touch his grass. He is also the guy who got egged every Halloween. If somebody chucked an anonymous bag of used diapers out of a car, they went on his beloved lawn. And the Yard Nazi was always the number one target of getting his house rolled/tp'ed or his front door (excrement)-bombed.
They are the last ones listening to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. For those readers who saw pictures of the Teabaggers at their local venue, who can honestly state that the people seen there were not a 60%-38% mix favoring Yard Nazis over Hillbillies?
One appreciates that there were some very sincere and honorable people at the Tea Parties. But when one's political activism only includes grievances and broad policy objectives without any specific method for achieving said objectives, the activist becomes his opposition's best advertisement. Thus by losing Reagan's optimism and pragmatism, Republicans are pushing the center away with a Snowplow.
This is something Obama pulled out of his ear. He is the first Democrat to get that optimism and pragmatism appeal to the center. Has President Obama managed to achieve all of his objectives from the campaign trail? No, because no one can live up to any campaign's litany of goals. Has he managed to move on controversial actions and prevail? More often than not, Obama has been successful.
By appealing to the center, where a third of the country's voters abide, he risks losing a few on the ultra-left by not being Liberal enough, and the perpetual right wasn't going to vote for him anyway. The further Republicans move toward the Teabagger mentality, the wider the center willing to hear Obama becomes. As the economy eventually recovers, the question will become that of the '84 Reagan campaign: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
The moment is coming where one wish of Conservative pundits is about to come true, and it's going to backfire on Republicans. The hope was that President Obama be credited for every act of the new administration. Once economic recovery takes root, all of those "no" votes are going to haunt Republicans like Marley's ghost.
It begins now. The same talkers desiring Obama get full accountability for the measures to counteract the recent unpleasantness are working on borrowed time. Local conservative talk has imploded in California, with ratings now drilling for oil under Hell. Tertiary hosts are one, maybe two ratings books from gone, and secondary hosts will be out within a couple of years.
After this winnowing, the only ones left will be Rush, Sean, and a couple of hosts in deep-red local markets like Atlanta's Neal Boortz and Dallas-Fort Worth's Mark Davis. There are already indications that Conservative talk radio is beginning to infight and pressure lesser-known hosts into staying on the reservation. The same sub-national presenters are evidencing a use of the smaller programs as a source of callers to nationally syndicated broadcasts.
As things exist right now, the local figures are serving to identify callers who are still in step with the agenda of national programs. There is a case to be made that screeners are coaching the same callers to expel talking points in a prescribed order which leaves the shows feeling as spontaneous as the construction of a shopping mall.
Conservative talk is dying, and lives in denial of its mortality. An opening now exists which was not even believable a year ago. Liberal talk did not fail on the merit of ideas, as is so frequently suggested by conservatives. If liberalism had failed in the realm of ideas, Mitt Romney woud be the POTUS. Liberal talk became dormant upon a litany of mediocre broadcasters.
If a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher were to begin a syndicated broadcast leaning upon Liberal ideas, it could succeed. The nation has already accepted a left-of-center president with enthusiasm. A left-of-center radio broadcast with an entertaining host and some semblance of spontanaeity could provide an offset to the structured ennui that has become Conservative radio.
Perhaps that could be the greatest accomplishment of progressive leadership.
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
25 April 2009
28 March 2009
07 February 2009
When Right Is Wrong
As the worthy opposition in talk radio rants and raves about President Obama's economic recovery package, one wishes to suggest that the conservative talkers are spectacularly wrong about everything.
Privately-based solutions to issues facing the public are infinitely preferable to those coming from the public sector. However, the state of the private sector is such that the catastrophic collapse of large segments of the private intellectual infrastructure has occurred. Free markets can only survive when both the production and consumption sides function as equals.
In the case of the US banking and finance industries, the lack of public oversight left the consumer at a disadvantage to the producer. Ultimately liberties were taken which could not be supported by the market, leaving the production side of the equation with a handful of well-intentioned wishes which were legal and worthless tender simultaneously. Whether we like it or not, the public sector has a role in assuring that the practices of the production side do not overmatch the capabilities of the consumption side.
This goes the same for petroleum companies not gouging the price of gasoline and unions not gouging the price of labor.
At a moment when the economy is shrinking, government has a role as as a parallel conduit for capital improvement. If progress is blocked by large dead obstacles on the normal private path, then it is the necessary role of the public sector to ascertain that the well being of the nation continue to progress regardless.
President Obama's plan appears to have a functional system of mechanisms which appear to promote at least an illusion of rewarding initiative and empowering incentive for enterprises which accept risk. This is not Socialism, which attempts to restrain risk through planned production and scheduled shortage to perpetuate an underserved market receiving inferior product protected from competition by legislative fiat. Socialism isolates a nation behind walls, holding its people incommunicado from new ideas, ultimately enslaving multitudes by appealing to atavistic mistrust of the unknown.
Frankly, the cultural practices of socialism reflect more those of conservative talk radio than the last-resort leveraging of the public sector by a President faced with an economic crisis not of his making. We appreciate the thought that a strict orthodoxy of lower taxes, smaller government, and minimal reliance upon the public sector are keys to the nation's prosperity. Unfortunately, a sampling of large nations indicates that this is not true.
The tax burden in Germany is 42%. Norway's burden is 29%. The USA, Canada, and Australia are all at 24%. Mexico is at 8%. So far, if this wisdom holds constant, Mexico should be the most affluent of all of the countries.
A review of hourly incomes in manufacturing jobs after taxes in Germany, the US, Australia, and Canada has all four countries hovering between US$17-19. The Germans are at the high end, US$18.86, while the US, Canada, and Australia hover within about a quarter of US$17.60. The Norwegians smoked everybody drawing US$24.59, and the Mexicans came in at US$2.30.
Wait a minute, I'm confused! The Mexicans, with the lowest tax rate, the greatest local control of schools, the smallest presence of labor unions, a stricter emphasis upon border security and the strongest structures impeding imported goods, came in DEAD LAST? But, AM talk radio has been telling us that these things would lead to prosperity for twenty years!
Okay, well, Mexico has a heavily deregulated and completely private health care system. They should be the best cared for people, and the life expectancy should reflect that. The Mexican people only spend 6.2% of their GDP on medicine. Men can expect to live to 72.6, women 78.3.
Americans spend 15.2% of their GDP on a private health care system, over US$5700 per person, and get 74.8 for men, 80.1 for women. But this is supposed to be the best health care system in the world. So how come Norwegians, Germans, and Canadians pay less per capita (9-11% of GDP) but get over a year more life expectancy from their nationalized public health systems than we do in the United States? The average dollar outlay is even more dramatic, hovering at half(!!!!!) of what we pay for our health care as Americans.
One country would be a fluke. Two would be questionable. But a view of industrialized nations with nationalized health care shows a consistent per capita cost of between US$2500 and US$3200 per person. One may not speak for a gentle reader, but it looks like Americans are getting the raw end on this one.
After further review...the ruling is such...talk radio is lying to their listeners. The leveraging of public resources for the good of the population paying for them may qualify as socialism under a very broad interpretation of the term. However, the lesson of other industrialized countries, including our next door neighbors in Canada and Mexico, indicates that a certain level of taxaton is necessary and a certain level of publicly-based solutions are necessary for the continued wellbeing and prosperity of the nation.
For those who have invested their faith in the Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie, go get a World Almanac and prove me wrong. Utopianism, be it through a Capitalist or Socialist economic model, is spectacularly unworkable.
Imitating the practices of the Mexican Government is most likely to produce the same results as Mexico. We would be well served by taking our lessons from the neighbor which does not have millions of people risking their lives for a better existence as the object of scorn and prejudice.
Nobody is trying to deport Mike Myers, no matter how little they liked The Love Guru.
16 September 2008
How Obama Gets His Groove Back
Apparently, Your Wandering Gentile is a Black, Muslim, Socialist, Anarchist, Miscegenist, Anti-American Pawn of the New World Order, harboring closeted homosexual tendencies, immediately disposed to the murder of infants and the elderly, and perverting kindergarteners with free access to pornography.
Wow, I got all of this for one small donation to the Obama campaign!
To those who share their viewpoint with the lead paragraph, I would also like to say that I dislike puppies, SUVs, and the idea of persons wearing uniforms being granted the authority to review my papers on a whim. While we're at it, the idea of a fence as a barrier between my nation and the rest of the world suggests an infrastructure to convert the nation I love into a prison, an idea which is spectacularly offensive.
Okay, I don't really dislike puppies, but I am allergic to them.
I live in the middle of America, the suburbs of a major city, with an income, age, and educational attainment that sit exactly in the middle. I am John Doe. I am the guy who John McCain got in 2000, and the man he lost in 2008.
That being said, the Obama campaign has a couple of issues that need to be fixed...yesterday.
The campaign must address the fact that issues that face black America are fundamentally the same issues that face white, latino, asian and native Americans. Economic issues in particular have a disproportionately negative effect on black Americans, as do questions of selective enforcement and overt bigotry. To Obama's credit, all of the issues which are not receiving the attention appropriate to their importance were addressed in The Audacity of Hope.
The focus has to be moved on two fronts.
The first front is to demonstrate credibly that the interests of Americans of every identity are more alike than they are different. That in and of itself is a whole hell of a lot easier to say than do. The Republicans have been spectacularly effective in communicating that Obama and his supporters are different and strange, in such a fashion as to make a monolithic body which is questioned for its ability to be considered as a part of America.
This is the overwhelming theme of Conservative opinon, particularly talk radio which has a twenty year head start on Liberal talk radio. The best idea is not by attempting to discredit or disprove allegations, but by moving the conversation to where the audience overlaps in opinion with Obama.
As Chris Rock pointed out in Head of State, the worst thing that Bugs Bunny could do to Elmer Fudd was not blowing him up, but kissing him. An Obama presence with The Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie would be a better opportunity to reach middle America than a billion dollars worth of TV ads. All he would have to do is show up for an hour, take a couple of phone calls which are likely to come from hostile people, and hope the presenter would blow his stack, or in the unlikely event of a civil discussion, he connects with an audience which was not likely to seek his message.
Whether or not Democrats like it, Limbaugh and Hannity are big power brokers in the middle of America. A great big chunk of their audience is rural, white, and blue collar, a few of whom are highly susceptible to rumors and innuendo. The idea is not to mine those who are absolutely opposed to Obama under any circumstances, but appeal to the large component of middle class listeners to these programs who are fair minded and willing to review their decisions based upon a fair hearing of the facts.
There is no question of "legitimizing" Right-wing talk radio. It is not an issue of legitimization or de-legitimization. Right-wing talk radio simply is and no definition of the word is necessary. There is nothing to fear except abandoning an audience which lives in Obama's weakest demographic. One counts upon the junior Senator from Illinois bringing his charisma and charm to the microphone, swinging a few opinions to his side. This idea is a winner.
The other front is deemphasizing the "Change" brand. Senator Obama's resources have him in a position to upgrade his brand from "Change" to "Hope." One supposes that the Gentle Reader is considering that The Wandering Gentile is in deep need of a drug screening after suggesting that Obama show up on Rush Limbaugh and alter his branding.
Change tells the voter that the candidate would do things differently from the current administration, but it does not delineate how or how much. The idea of casting a candidate from the incumbent party as the incumbent is proving to be a non-starter. Hope is what persuaded voters to Clinton in '92, Reagan in '80, Roosevelt in '32. While McCain's policies are deeply similar to Bush's, he remains a different man, thusly falling under a generic idea of change.
It's not persuasive, nor was it ever. The Obama campaign requires the message of Hope to propel the conversation in its direction. Change without hope? Hell, I can get that with McCain. Non-Traditional on the ticket? Sarah Palin is not a traditional person on the ticket. Change is coming regardless.
No, change kind of sucks as a message. Obama would be well served to dance with the one what brung him, and that one is Hope. This is the point where the Clinton assets should come to the table. The Clinton brand was built on hope in the nineties, a particularly potent message in the atmosphere of the Bush 41 recession and the Keating Five. Considering the atmosphere where financial institutions are dropping like cell phone calls in the boonies, and all of the other crud the economy is going through now, hope combined with a clearly articulated agenda has a lot of potential.
The idea is not for either candidate to change their positions, but for both candidates positions to appear clearly and comprehensibly to the electorate. This absurd pattern where both parties' wedge issues are taking center stage needs to end now. While the candidates engage in volleys of juvenile name calling and finger pointing, the issues affecting the quotidian lives of real Americans are not being addressed.
A gifted orator and communicator like Obama can survive the slings and arrows of the partisan opposition if his campaign sticks to the qualities that make him compelling combined with a principled and concrete discussion of his positions. Playing a game invented by his opponents suggests that Obama's presence at the inauguration would be at the discretion of President-elect John McCain, not the American people who have worked so hard to support him.
One asks- does Senator Obama feel that the campaign lives up to the expectations of his supporters?
Wow, I got all of this for one small donation to the Obama campaign!
To those who share their viewpoint with the lead paragraph, I would also like to say that I dislike puppies, SUVs, and the idea of persons wearing uniforms being granted the authority to review my papers on a whim. While we're at it, the idea of a fence as a barrier between my nation and the rest of the world suggests an infrastructure to convert the nation I love into a prison, an idea which is spectacularly offensive.
Okay, I don't really dislike puppies, but I am allergic to them.
I live in the middle of America, the suburbs of a major city, with an income, age, and educational attainment that sit exactly in the middle. I am John Doe. I am the guy who John McCain got in 2000, and the man he lost in 2008.
That being said, the Obama campaign has a couple of issues that need to be fixed...yesterday.
The campaign must address the fact that issues that face black America are fundamentally the same issues that face white, latino, asian and native Americans. Economic issues in particular have a disproportionately negative effect on black Americans, as do questions of selective enforcement and overt bigotry. To Obama's credit, all of the issues which are not receiving the attention appropriate to their importance were addressed in The Audacity of Hope.
The focus has to be moved on two fronts.
The first front is to demonstrate credibly that the interests of Americans of every identity are more alike than they are different. That in and of itself is a whole hell of a lot easier to say than do. The Republicans have been spectacularly effective in communicating that Obama and his supporters are different and strange, in such a fashion as to make a monolithic body which is questioned for its ability to be considered as a part of America.
This is the overwhelming theme of Conservative opinon, particularly talk radio which has a twenty year head start on Liberal talk radio. The best idea is not by attempting to discredit or disprove allegations, but by moving the conversation to where the audience overlaps in opinion with Obama.
As Chris Rock pointed out in Head of State, the worst thing that Bugs Bunny could do to Elmer Fudd was not blowing him up, but kissing him. An Obama presence with The Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie would be a better opportunity to reach middle America than a billion dollars worth of TV ads. All he would have to do is show up for an hour, take a couple of phone calls which are likely to come from hostile people, and hope the presenter would blow his stack, or in the unlikely event of a civil discussion, he connects with an audience which was not likely to seek his message.
Whether or not Democrats like it, Limbaugh and Hannity are big power brokers in the middle of America. A great big chunk of their audience is rural, white, and blue collar, a few of whom are highly susceptible to rumors and innuendo. The idea is not to mine those who are absolutely opposed to Obama under any circumstances, but appeal to the large component of middle class listeners to these programs who are fair minded and willing to review their decisions based upon a fair hearing of the facts.
There is no question of "legitimizing" Right-wing talk radio. It is not an issue of legitimization or de-legitimization. Right-wing talk radio simply is and no definition of the word is necessary. There is nothing to fear except abandoning an audience which lives in Obama's weakest demographic. One counts upon the junior Senator from Illinois bringing his charisma and charm to the microphone, swinging a few opinions to his side. This idea is a winner.
The other front is deemphasizing the "Change" brand. Senator Obama's resources have him in a position to upgrade his brand from "Change" to "Hope." One supposes that the Gentle Reader is considering that The Wandering Gentile is in deep need of a drug screening after suggesting that Obama show up on Rush Limbaugh and alter his branding.
Change tells the voter that the candidate would do things differently from the current administration, but it does not delineate how or how much. The idea of casting a candidate from the incumbent party as the incumbent is proving to be a non-starter. Hope is what persuaded voters to Clinton in '92, Reagan in '80, Roosevelt in '32. While McCain's policies are deeply similar to Bush's, he remains a different man, thusly falling under a generic idea of change.
It's not persuasive, nor was it ever. The Obama campaign requires the message of Hope to propel the conversation in its direction. Change without hope? Hell, I can get that with McCain. Non-Traditional on the ticket? Sarah Palin is not a traditional person on the ticket. Change is coming regardless.
No, change kind of sucks as a message. Obama would be well served to dance with the one what brung him, and that one is Hope. This is the point where the Clinton assets should come to the table. The Clinton brand was built on hope in the nineties, a particularly potent message in the atmosphere of the Bush 41 recession and the Keating Five. Considering the atmosphere where financial institutions are dropping like cell phone calls in the boonies, and all of the other crud the economy is going through now, hope combined with a clearly articulated agenda has a lot of potential.
The idea is not for either candidate to change their positions, but for both candidates positions to appear clearly and comprehensibly to the electorate. This absurd pattern where both parties' wedge issues are taking center stage needs to end now. While the candidates engage in volleys of juvenile name calling and finger pointing, the issues affecting the quotidian lives of real Americans are not being addressed.
A gifted orator and communicator like Obama can survive the slings and arrows of the partisan opposition if his campaign sticks to the qualities that make him compelling combined with a principled and concrete discussion of his positions. Playing a game invented by his opponents suggests that Obama's presence at the inauguration would be at the discretion of President-elect John McCain, not the American people who have worked so hard to support him.
One asks- does Senator Obama feel that the campaign lives up to the expectations of his supporters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
