In Which We Go Through the Looking Glass One More Time
The wankery from the right is unabated AND apparently this s a dress rehearsal for what we may be in for over the next four years should Obama win.
Now that we’ve put away the black man attacking white female supporter of McCain, we’ve moved on to the new subject of the Looking Glass. Today that subject is a seven-year old panel discussion of which Obama was a member where our right rabbits are beckoning us to follow them in their assertion that Obama has claimed it a “tragedy that the Supreme Court did not pursue a redistribution of wealth”. This is headlined over at Drudge so we have strike one and two right there.
Jake Tapper at ABC has a link to the entire radio program (there is a opportunistically edited version floating around out there that is, of course, more crazyness) plus some germane excerpts from the discussion. The take away is that Obama isn’t complaining about the Supreme Court — he is complaining about the strategies and tactics of the civil rights movement:
one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that.”
This new bit of wanking has earned itself a calling out (and some admiration of his constitutional thinking) by two conservative lawyers at the Volokh Conspiracy — both David Bernstein and Orin Kerr.
One more piece from the interview:
A caller, “Karen,” asked if it’s “too late for that kind of reparative work economically?” And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.
“Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor,” Obama said. “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.”
How can it possibly be a tragedy for someone to articulate a view of the courts that (rightly, I think) actually recognizes the limitations of judicial actions versus doing the work of influencing public opinion and passing legislation?
But I guess that since the GOP has gone almost completely atavistic at this point, working the socialist angle is among all of the arguments they have left.
Tags: 2008 Presidential
Sorry, cassandra. The guy’s gonna win, but you simply can’t dress this one up to be something other than what it is.
And you haven’t even heard the undoctored discussion.
But this is a feature, not a bug of this sort of thing, yes? Just take the list of accusations of the day and repeatrepeatrepeat until enough folks think it is actually true.
Even folks who might be your ideological allies over at Volokh aren’t even buying this cheese. But then, they actually listened to the whole thing.
Forty acres and mule, jack!
(or was that forty ounces makes a fool?)
I have most certainly heard the whole thing (including the dead air at the end.)
Obama has long-advocated the redistribution of wealth through government. I’ve heard plenty of people say “Good. The Republicans redistributed wealth upwards, and Obama’s gonna do the opposite.” But no one in full honesty is pretending he’s something other than a full redistributionist.
“But this is a feature, not a bug of this sort of thing, yes? Just take the list of accusations of the day and repeatrepeatrepeat until enough folks think it is actually true.”
That happens right here. Every day.
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.
Why do you support redistributive change?
The term atavism (derived from the Latin atavus, a great-grandfather’s grandfather and, thus, more generally, an ancestor) denotes the tendency to revert to ancestral type. An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.[1] Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them.
We are finding something atavistic in the Republican Party of the last 50 years. REPTILIAN: cold, emotionless.
See –
http://books.google.com/books?id=2TtOjwtbXG8C&pg=RA2-PA239&lpg=RA2-PA239&dq=reptilian+attributes+in+humans&source=web&ots=hCKGcIiAog&sig=Pb2n1T864w2Dj4bhWdvIhDQa2mc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
I blame mynym for this post!! Good to see you mynym.
Which redistributive programs are you proposing to eliminate?
And – assuming you don’t chicken out, and you actually come up with a list of programs you want to eliminate – What candidate agrees with you?
I guess Republicans don’t understand simple English because Obama clearly says he disagrees with the use of the court system during the civil rights era.
McCain needs to be pinned down on redistribution. What redistribution is he opposed to exactly?
Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Bank bailouts?
Buyouts of homeowner mortgages?
EITC?
OK, so McCain is a commie too, we knew that. But surely you wingnut bloggers are pure-at-heart fiscal conservatives, right?
Come on anti-redistributionists, let’s have your list. Why so quiet now?
Maybe the wingers need some help. Here’s the scoop from the rightwing Volokh Conspiracy:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225104785
And they are fake anti-redistributionists. They are delighted with the river of funds being transferred to SAICc, Blackwater, Halliburton and the usual beltway bandits with no accountability.
The point of highlighting this new bit of wankery is that he is awfully clear about talking about the court system — certainly not all of government which all of the wingnuts have decided is the new Obama Birth certificate scandal of the week. They still can’t get to any of their arguments honestly.
I’m told that the ABC link to WBEZ’s Real Audio stream doesn’t seem to be working.
I’ve got to run out here shortly, but if you want to hear the undoctored debate you can go here and I think that the correct panel is the first one in the list. This is close to an hour long.
Volokh? The same Volokh who says this, in the same piece?
I’m not saying Obama wants to redistribute wealth through the courts. I’m saying Obama wants to redistribute wealth, period. And that is indisputable at this point.
Talk about “indisputable”! The government has been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest for decades via tax policy, and I have never heard any repubs complain about that as long as it has been redistributed like that.
The Straight Drop Express in search of a toe hold is comedy gold.
“Talk about “indisputable”! The government has been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest for decades via tax policy, and I have never heard any repubs complain about that as long as it has been redistributed like that.”
I’ll point out that yours is not an argument against Obama as redistributionist.
Dave is back on the stump, spinning the ginned up fake news created by Fox like it is real. Good times.
At least he started off the thread trying to sound like a member of the reality based community.
That’s weak, J. Really weak.
Tax cuts work Dave! Keep hope alive.
I meant the last thing you said was weak, not ‘come up with the weakest thing you can for your next comment.’
Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t understand why we should listen to anything that Republicans about economics, considering how badly they mismanaged our country. Is the argument that Obama is in favor of taxes? Sorry, the story Drudge was pushing was that Obama wanted the court to “redistribute wealth” when he actually said the complete opposite.
I’ll point out that yours is not an argument against Obama as redistributionist.
No, it is an argument that Obama will introduce a fairer tax code and have government policies that level the playing field for the middle class. It will remove the current repub redistribution policies.
If modifying government policies to provide more of an opportunity for everybody is “redistribution” to you, then so be it. I think what Obama is talking about is a redistribution of opportunity.
I’m not saying Obama wants to redistribute wealth through the courts.
Well since that is the wingnut talking point of the day that I am addressing, that is a nice little dance. Drudge’s point was specifically abut the tragedy of the Supreme Court not redistributing wealth, which at least you agree is not what he is saying.
But you’ve never voted for a President who didn’t redistribute wealth anyway — certainly the Reagan revolution made sure that the the DC beltway denizens would have pretty hefty growth entirely dependent upon the transfer of tax dollars to the pockets of the political contributor class.
“Well since that is the wingnut talking point of the day that I am addressing, that is a nice little dance. Drudge’s point was specifically abut the tragedy of the Supreme Court not redistributing wealth, which at least you agree is not what he is saying.”
I’m not Drudge, nor do I have any obligation to defend him. I made a simple point. That’s all.
How very Sarah Palin of you.
Emphasis on “simple.”
We are finding something atavistic in the Republican Party of the last 50 years. REPTILIAN: cold, emotionless.
I blame mynym for this post!! Good to see you mynym.
Now, now, don’t blame me for it. The Darwinian creation myth is itself an atavistic relic of the biological brains stupid enough to think that it’s actually true.
Besides, the reptilian portion of the brain is literally/biologically associated with being ruled by your emotions and that tends to be the Leftist way. Having a touchy feely feeling in your little heart may make you feel more human but it doesn’t make you right. And how do you know that the Right’s tendency to focus on rationality and righteousness eliminates the emotions of Rightists?
And how do you know that the Right’s tendency to focus on rationality and righteousness eliminates the emotions of Rightists?
What the hell are you going on about? Do you know any conservatives by any chance? I do, I would not describe any of them as rational and only a few as righteous.
Mynym! Where’ve you been? Soaking up all the voluminous information Lexis Nexis has to offer only to regurgitate it to people who don’t give a shit?
Social Security?
Do you really think that seniors and society in general are more “secure” the more control that politicians have? Is social security, secure?
Medicare?
Politicians don’t care about your health. In fact, no one really cares about your health as much as you do or your family and friends. Money can only go so far when it comes to caring about health or “healthcare.” Yes, you can pay to have someone care about your health but money is only language which tends to lose its credibility as a statement of values. If civilization/language is declining as is the tendency in Empires (more copper in the coin, etc.) then eventually greater amounts of money can no longer prop it up because language itself becomes worthless. For example, it’s much cheaper to have people that actually care about your health because they’re motivated by things like Christian charity and hospitality than people whose caring must be bought.
Come on anti-redistributionists, let’s have your list. Why so quiet now?
There’s no need to make the lists or mention the litanies typical to Leftists, “education, healthcare and the environment!” because if you begin by focusing on sound governing principles then things unfold naturally in the details.
I do, I would not describe any of them as rational and only a few as righteous.
Well, who are they?
Atavistic as I used the word was to be read more as metaphor — but certainly among the arsenal of scary that forms the basis of the wingnut hive mind would be the old school call outs to socialism and communism among other things. None of these things are true, but that isn’t the point is it? The manipulation is.
And how do you know that the Right’s tendency to focus on rationality and righteousness eliminates the emotions of Rightists?
First thing you need to do is to demonstrate to an absolutely certainly that rationality or righteousness actually exists among Rightists these days. Otherwise, you’ve got yourself a fairly run-of-the-mill sophomoric angels on a pin question.
Soaking up all the voluminous information Lexis Nexis has to offer only to regurgitate it to people who don’t give a shit?
Oh, I’ve been around. I wouldn’t bother with Nexis much, see Propaganda by Jacques Ellul for some reasons why.
Atavistic as I used the word was to be read more as metaphor…
A metaphor drawn from a mythology of Progress which ironically reduces the human intellect itself to humus. Why do you consider yourself more advanced than others? Note that the majority of organs in the body originally thought to be atavistic have been found have been found to perform important functions. So if your metaphor is true then the same may be true in the body politic.
…but certainly among the arsenal of scary that forms the basis of the wingnut hive mind would be the old school call outs to socialism and communism among other things. None of these things are true, but that isn’t the point is it? The manipulation is.
You seem to be thinking that everything is a matter of stigma words and emotional reactions but doesn’t socialism as a concept have a meaning rooted in history and so on? Why don’t you prove the Right wrong based on that?
First thing you need to do is to demonstrate to an absolutely certainly that rationality or righteousness actually exists among Rightists these days.
I didn’t say that rationality and righteousness exist on the Right, only that given a Rightist mentality there is a tendency to focus on such things. After all, one can focus on righteousness to the point of denying that mercy or forgiveness could ever be right, and that doesn’t seem right now does it?
Cassandra, my advice is to back away slowly from mynym and simply walk away. Right…now.
Thanks Mike, but there isn’t much challenging or intimidating by someone who is here contributing to the constant media environment hat his bud Ellul critiques.
The key to mynym, of course, is a close reading of the rush of BS to know 1) that it is BS, and 2) that getting folks to engage with the BS is the destination. Lots of typing by mynym to be sure, but not much said.
Cassandra, my advice is to back away slowly from mynym and simply walk away.
Come on Mike, I’m trying to see how a Leftist mind works here. She seems to be having a scary or frightening feeling that people are using the term socialism as a stigma word, a word of imagery asserted to manipulate emotions but without real content. Socialism has a meaning rooted in history so it should be easy to show the emptiness of such propagandistic imagery.
Mynym,
We hashed this out three years ago. Ain’t nothing changed in my mind or yours.
Thanks Mike, but there isn’t much challenging or intimidating….
Challenging or intimidating? Is that another scary feeling that you’re having? If so, I’m sorry to hear that because I am neither.
….by someone who is here contributing to the constant media environment hat his bud Ellul critiques.
You should probably read Ellul before commenting. After all, if your reasoning were true he wouldn’t have written anything.
Again, it’s a simple question. If the Right’s use of the term socialism is all just propaganda and manipulation then why not point to the history of socialism to prove them wrong and so on?
If the Right’s use of the term socialism is all just propaganda and manipulation then why not point to the history of socialism to prove them wrong and so on?
We prove them wrong a dozen times every day, and that’s just before lunch. It doesn’t matter to them. They don’t care if their attacks are right or wrong, they are just looking for something that works.
We hashed this out three years ago. Ain’t nothing changed in my mind or yours.
I don’t recall hashing out the topic of socialism.
We prove them wrong a dozen times every day, and that’s just before lunch.
If you have dozens of posts which show that their use of the term socialism does not comport with the history or definition of socialism then just link to them.
Seriously. Take one look at this guy’s web site and you’ll realize Mike is understated in his advice.
Take one look at this guy’s web site and you’ll realize Mike is understated in his advice.
For people apparently defending a post attacking political propaganda you engage in it often enough. It’s all imagery, conditioning and manipulation. It would be more rational to ground your arguments about socialism in its history and definition. The appeal of propaganda is irrational so it never makes any difference as to what is actually true. For example, even if it were true that I am a craaazy person and so on that doesn’t change the history and definition of socialism.
They don’t care if their attacks are right or wrong, they are just looking for something that works.
This is the Leftist way, whatever works tends to be defined by their emotional state. Rightists at least tend to want to believe that their attacks are actually right.
Mynym – we cannot possibly discuss the history of socialism with you unless you first explain what you are talking about. Please describe the history of socialism in detail. Be brief.
It’s all imagery, conditioning and manipulation.
This is the pot calling the kettle &c….