Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:52:00

So, yeah.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:09:31

One of the scariest douches in PA politics, Sam Rohrer, is mulling a run for governor. He has no chance, but still.

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:00:30

Bloomberg might endorse in NJ-Gov.

by **allentown** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:57:39

Our local paper reports today that PA gaming regulators granted a casino license to Louis DeNaples without interviewing reputed mobster William D'Elia, whom DeNaples testified he didn't know, despite D'Elia was willing to talk about the relationship. The Dauphin County DA dropped perjury charges against DeNaples, despite photographic and other evidence of a long-term relationsship provided by D'Elia. Despite this, the Gaming Control Board also restored DeNaples gaming license. Such is the state of casino regulation and justice in our state. Table games coming soon as a result of budget compromise.

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 14:14:39

The Paranoid Style goes fully mainstream:

The analysis argues that Obama's unpopularity among conservative Republicans is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from liberal Democratic ire against George W. Bush -- that the GOP is more heavily conservative than the Democrats are heavily liberal, and that the hatred of Obama is more intense than Dem hatred of Bush was. All of this adds up to a powerful set of emotions that the Republican Party as a whole cannot ignore.

One thing that the firm makes clear, though, is that this is not about racism, but about ideology: "Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters' beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson's incendiary comments at the president's joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point."
...
By contrast, Democracy Corps also interviewed a separate group of somewhat conservative-leaning swing voters, and these attitudes were not to be found: "One of the most telling differences between the partisan Republican groups and the independent groups was the language they used. Conservative Republicans fully embrace the 'socialism' attacks on Obama and believe it is the best, most accurate framework for describing him and his agenda. Independents largely dismiss these attacks as the kind of overblown partisan rhetoric that obscures the facts and only serves to cheapen the political discourse."

Conservatives see themselves as an oppressed minority, holding on to knowledge that isn't represented in the wider media and culture: "Conservative Republicans passionately believe that they represent a group of people who have been targeted by a popular culture and set of liberal elites - embodied in the liberal mainstream media - that mock their values and are actively working to advance the downfall of the things that matter most to them in their lives - their faith, their families, their country, and their freedom."

The race stuff is interesting. I mostly agree with this analysis, but I do think that it contributes at some probably subconscious level: if you see Obama as even more "other" than, say, John Kerry, it becomes easier to ascribe his actions to a sinister foreign ideology like socialism.

Probably more to the point is the increasing danger posed by people (not just on the right, though they're the ones I worry about at this moment) whose worldview is entirely closed off from contrary facts or opinions. Few of us these days don't incline toward information sources that somewhat reinforce our worldviews, but most can at least articulate the position of "the other side" and see where they're coming from, more or less. But the certitude of this bunch is something else. You can't engage them and you can't ignore them.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 15:15:03

I initially misread the thread title as "Full of Passionate Infidelity". Being a political thread, I guess it was an understandable misreading...

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 15:25:28

allentown wrote:Our local paper reports today that PA gaming regulators granted a casino license to Louis DeNaples without interviewing reputed mobster William D'Elia, whom DeNaples testified he didn't know, despite D'Elia was willing to talk about the relationship. The Dauphin County DA dropped perjury charges against DeNaples, despite photographic and other evidence of a long-term relationsship provided by D'Elia. Despite this, the Gaming Control Board also restored DeNaples gaming license. Such is the state of casino regulation and justice in our state. Table games coming soon as a result of budget compromise.

Aside from the non-surprise of the obvious "criminals involved in the gambling biz" thing, this isn't surprising. I've heard news about some sort of political corruption thing (unrelated to gambling I think) going on up there in NEPA involving judges and elected officials. This is also not surprising. NEPA politics at it's finest.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 15:26:50

allentown wrote: Table games coming soon as a result of budget compromise.

praying for poker

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 09:05:57

dajafi wrote:... the certitude of this bunch is something else. You can't engage them and you can't ignore them.

I initially read this as "can't engage them due to the inflexible certitude (they don't call them "old fossils" for nothing) and can't ignore them because they have outsized financial might."

But I'm rethinking this: I realize I'm not sure that that inflexible cadre is older OR in control of greater wealth than average, whether the average is taken of the general populace, or of politically motivated sub-populations.

So maybe there's a ray of hope for ignoring?

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 09:34:19

dajafi wrote:The race stuff is interesting. I mostly agree with this analysis, but I do think that it contributes at some probably subconscious level: if you see Obama as even more "other" than, say, John Kerry, it becomes easier to ascribe his actions to a sinister foreign ideology like socialism.

I think the socialism thing is a short view - the same people who scream "socialism" now are the same people who screamed it at Clinton when he was attempting UHC, scream it at Pelosi and Reid, and screamed it at Gore, H. Clinton, and Kerry (but they lost so the screaming ended - Obama didn't). The race thing - that's just the cheapest WMD shot in American politics. The accusation lacks any point of debate 8 out of 10 times. In the case of Obama, it almost always relies on the accuser psychoanalyzing the person accused, as they often neither say nor do anything that can be directly pointed out as racist. The accused is backed in a corner for which they can either attempt to "prove" they aren't a racist (which always makes them look stupid) or ignore the accusation (which provides evidence to the accuser that the person is indeed racist). It amounts to name calling - heck, the criteria for the accusation doesn't even need to include someone who isn't white - one only needs to find a way to extrapolate a position or policy somehow into racism and the attack can exist.

Even when intelligent debate on the points occurs, someone inevitably says something like "but I'm sure racism is a part of this somewhere" as a parting stab on the way out the door.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 09:55:56

VoxOrion wrote:
dajafi wrote:The race stuff is interesting. I mostly agree with this analysis, but I do think that it contributes at some probably subconscious level: if you see Obama as even more "other" than, say, John Kerry, it becomes easier to ascribe his actions to a sinister foreign ideology like socialism.

I think the socialism thing is a short view - the same people who scream "socialism" now are the same people who screamed it at Clinton when he was attempting UHC, scream it at Pelosi and Reid, and screamed it at Gore, H. Clinton, and Kerry (but they lost so the screaming ended - Obama didn't). The race thing - that's just the cheapest WMD shot in American politics. The accusation lacks any point of debate 8 out of 10 times. In the case of Obama, it almost always relies on the accuser psychoanalyzing the person accused, as they often neither say nor do anything that can be directly pointed out as racist. The accused is backed in a corner for which they can either attempt to "prove" they aren't a racist (which always makes them look stupid) or ignore the accusation (which provides evidence to the accuser that the person is indeed racist). It amounts to name calling - heck, the criteria for the accusation doesn't even need to include someone who isn't white - one only needs to find a way to extrapolate a position or policy somehow into racism and the attack can exist.

Even when intelligent debate on the points occurs, someone inevitably says something like "but I'm sure racism is a part of this somewhere" as a parting stab on the way out the door.

So you're (not you specifically VO; the abstract "you") caught in an analytical conundrum. Ignoring, or, more problematic, denying the influence of race on human behavior (politics being a special case of same), particularly in a young nation riven with racial strain from early on, flattens any analysis you might produce - suggests you haven't 'gone far enough' or whatever.

"Playing the race card" in tactical situations can certainly be cheap posturing - often is, maybe usually is - but excising race from consideration of national-scale political doings is ignorant, in the most dispassionate, plainspoken, non-judgmental meaning of the term.

I'm saying that as someone guilty of doing so most of the time. That "parting stab" may cut primarily because it's a painful reminder.

I also agree with you that those charges of "socialism are just wack as fuck

by **pacino** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:38:12

there's no denying there's a race element to many's opinions of President Obama. Just walk in any bar, bowling center, social club in PA. It ain't that tough to figure out.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:49:10

You're making my point by example, brother smooth. You're going straight for psycho-historical analysis with a broad brush. What you describe is in fact true, but one cannot expect that to apply this truth to every or even most debates, it's a crutch laden with a powerful accusation. I almost made a follow-up post stating that you could replace "race/racism" in my previous post with "socialist/socialism" and the point I'm trying to make would be equally true - except that the accusation of being a socialist is no where near as loaded or morally wrong as the accusation of being racist. Hell, socialism isn't even a bad thing in and of itself, it has no true moral aspect - unlike racism.

I don't believe the opposition to Obama - tea parties, accusations of socialism, etc. are happening because Obama isn't white, and it's a terrible pattern to make that assumption. How can any intelligent observer not recognize that the opposition to him on the points is identical to the opposition made against other candidates/politicians with a similar agenda to his (see Pelosi/Reid for an up to the moment example)? It is accepted that protests over war, abortion, gay marriage et al are about policies, why is there an insistence that opposition over taxes/government programs are not? Because Obama's heritage is a politically expedient (and lazy) way to diffuse (while igniting).

Race is inserted as a dismissive gesture in order to either justify ones own opinion or to belittle and dismiss the opposition's. This is politics, I'm not crying about cheap shots as much as I'm bothered that the charge of racism is very serious and seems to be used with about the same care and precision as a monkey with a shotgun.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55:48

pacino wrote:there's no denying there's a race element to many's opinions of President Obama. Just walk in any bar, bowling center, social club in PA. It ain't that tough to figure out.

There's also "no denying" that he won decidedly despite his race, and that his policies are unpopular to sizable portions of the population at any time in the later half of the 20th century despite his race, no matter the politician. The only question on the latter is one of degree and the mood of the day.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:28:54

VoxOrion wrote:You're making my point by example, brother smooth. You're going straight for psycho-historical analysis with a broad brush.

No. I'm not going straight for an analysis. I'm pointing out that environmental elements can't be summarily dismissed from any credible analysis. When it comes to analysis of nation-level political analysis, factors in - whether it's acknowledged by the analyst or not.

What you describe is in fact true, but one cannot expect that to apply this truth to every or even most debates, it's a crutch laden with a powerful accusation.

A fact is not a 'crutch'. Hydrogen is part of water molecules. Hydrogen is not a water molecule 'crutch'.

I almost made a follow-up post stating that you could replace "race/racism" in my previous post with "socialist/socialism" and the point I'm trying to make would be equally true - except that the accusation of being a socialist is no where near as loaded or morally wrong as the accusation of being racist. Hell, socialism isn't even a bad thing in and of itself, it has no true moral aspect - unlike racism.

good so far.

I don't believe the opposition to Obama - tea parties, accusations of socialism, etc. are happening because Obama isn't white, and it's a terrible pattern to make that assumption.

we agree. You seem to be implying that a credible analysis that incorporates race is somehow 'biased' by that recognition.

Race is inserted as a dismissive gesture in order to either justify ones own opinion or to belittle and dismiss the opposition's. This is politics, I'm not crying about cheap shots as much as I'm bothered that the charge of racism is very serious and seems to be used with about the same care and precision as a monkey with a shotgun.

Fair on the indiscriminate use of race (is that irony?).

Unfair on the presumption that "race is inserted as a dismissive gesture" - because race isn't "inserted". It's elemental. Forget that it's Obama. Race is elemental to nation-level political discourse.

by **dajafi** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 14:09:26

VoxOrion wrote:I don't believe the opposition to Obama - tea parties, accusations of socialism, etc. are happening because Obama isn't white, and it's a terrible pattern to make that assumption. How can any intelligent observer not recognize that the opposition to him on the points is identical to the opposition made against other candidates/politicians with a similar agenda to his (see Pelosi/Reid for an up to the moment example)?

I think that, as is often the case, Vox and I agree in the guise of a disagreement. Probably I should have added in my initial post that whether or not racial considerations "inform" opposition to Obama on a subconscious level is, one, essentially unknowable, and two, irrelevant in terms of actions in response. That second part is probably the most significant finding of the Democracy Corps analysis.

All that said, I still think the perception of someone as belonging to any "other" contributes to the intensity of opposition to that individual as a vehicle for policies and beliefs that the opponents loathe anyway.

To use your own counterexample, do you really see no difference in the intensity with which those opposed to the administration go after Pelosi and Reid? Granted, maybe it's because Pelosi actually seems to have some spine where Reid's a thoroughgoing jellyfish, but I think the fact that one is an assertive (and perhaps vaguely ethnic) woman from ultraliberal San Francisco while the other is a more conciliatory-seeming Mormon from Nevada factors in at some level.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 14:15:34

drsmooth wrote:A fact is not a 'crutch'. Hydrogen is part of water molecules. Hydrogen is not a water molecule 'crutch'.

However, when discussing the amount of Country Time magic lemonade dust that needs to be added to a glass of water to turn it into lemonade, the undeniable fact that hydrogen is a part of water is irrelevant. Going on to discuss that hydrogen is not only a part of water but that hydrogen is involved with the detonation of a hydrogen bomb is (while still factual) extraordinarily distracting and certainly pointless when discussing the making of lemonade.

we agree. You seem to be implying that a credible analysis that incorporates race is somehow 'biased' by that recognition.

No, I'm stating that credible analysis regarding national healthcare, for example, ends with racism as a factor in the fine print at the end of the document, not part of the counter-argument's thesis.

Unfair on the presumption that "race is inserted as a dismissive gesture" - because race isn't "inserted". It's elemental. Forget that it's Obama. Race is elemental to nation-level political discourse.

Again, hydrogen bomb talk.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 14:26:44

dajafi wrote:All that said, I still think the perception of someone as belonging to any "other" contributes to the intensity of opposition to that individual as a vehicle for policies and beliefs that the opponents loathe anyway.

We do agree. Where I disagree(?) in terms of the Obama debate is that his "liberalness" is the most powerful number one "other" in the visceral part of opposition by many times the number factor of his racial "otherness". I'd argue that the moon-bat left recognizes this as well, evidenced by the attempt to make the accusation of "socialist" synonymous with a racial slur. From what little I hear, Pelosi still seems to be the #1 bad guy in the triumvirate of hate-targets on the right.

On the other hand there is no denying that there were elements on the (what's the equivalent of moon-bat on the right, sun-bat?) right that sought to amp otherness with cheap tactics like claiming Obama is a secret muslim or that he isn't a legitimate American citizen. Make no mistake, I am not arguing that this doesn't happen, I'm arguing that racism isn't a primary motivator for the mainstream opposition.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 14:47:07

What I think we're dealing with here is a degradation of political discourse where few really know how to have a policy dispute on the merits. So, we quickly result to utterly irrelevant labels--racists, socialist, Canadian, etc. which have nothing at all to do with the proposals we're supposed to talk about. We know how to make absurd, irrelevant charges. We don't know how to properly assess the costs and benefits of any given policy proposal. We don't even really know how to describe problems with the current health care system in this country.

by **dajafi** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 14:58:42

VoxOrion wrote:We do agree. Where I disagree(?) in terms of the Obama debate is that his "liberalness" is the most powerful number one "other" in the visceral part of opposition by many times the number factor of his racial "otherness".

I'd probably go along with that, except that--as with Clinton, which kind of reinforces your point--his "liberalness" is more perceived than actual, at least if you go by what real live liberals think. (See PtK's post on the last page of the "Single Payer" thread. Admittedly he's pretty far left on the spectrum of "people you'd expect to vote for Democrats," but OTOH he's a pretty good embodiment of the caricature of the left that many on the right mistake for the reality!)

VoxOrion wrote:I'd argue that the moon-bat left recognizes this as well, evidenced by the attempt to make the accusation of "socialist" synonymous with a racial slur. From what little I hear, Pelosi still seems to be the #1 bad guy in the triumvirate of hate-targets on the right.

Maybe this is happening, but I don't think I've seen much of it. Then again, I mostly try to stay out of those precincts these days. Life's too short to be that angry all the time, esp. during the playoffs.

VoxOrion wrote:On the other hand there is no denying that there were elements on the (what's the equivalent of moon-bat on the right, sun-bat?) right that sought to amp otherness with cheap tactics like claiming Obama is a secret muslim or that he isn't a legitimate American citizen. Make no mistake, I am not arguing that this doesn't happen, I'm arguing that racism isn't a primary motivator for the mainstream opposition.

Maybe where we disagree is how we'd define "mainstream opposition," except that I'm honestly not sure how I'd do that myself at this point. On substance rather than style, I don't hear much difference between what William Kristol and Newt Gingrich ("mainstream," or at least respectable enough to go on talk shows) say and what irate Tea Party-goers ("fringe" types who supposedly take Glenn Beck at face value and enjoy him unironically) are saying--other than maybe the second group is more likely to mindlessly throw about terms like "socialism."

Archived

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD