David Roberts, a writer for Grist, has succinctly encapsulates what has been and is wrong with our politics over the last thirty years. And to be clear, it is something that is wrong with our current brand of post-modern conservatives, and not something that is wrong with anyone else.
You must read them all:
Hilarious watching conservatives argue, not only that the card says Moops, but that Moops is the right answer. Postmodernism lives.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
First, some 1990’s culture reference. Moops. I can hear you all say, what is that? For context on what a Moops is, read this Seinfeld episode summary on Wikipedia. It will provide you the context. The most important part is this:
The Trivial Pursuit game ends prematurely when George disputes the answer to the question: “Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?” Donald answers “the Moors”, but—due to a misprint—the question card says that the answer is “the Moops”. George refuses to give Donald credit, and Donald attacks him.
Roberts is using the Moops reference to highlight the Halbig v. Brunnell Supreme Court case that seeks to cripple Obamacare. For you see, the case is based entirely on a Moops incident. The right, and those bringing the case, are arguing that some legislative language means that subsidies from the federal government to purchase healthcare are to be prohibited to states that do not set up their own health insurance exchange. The problem with that is that is the opposite of what the law is supposed to do, and what the legislative intent is and was.
1. Right has systematically and progressively destroyed the very notion of a nonpartisan arbiter of information.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
2. The implications are epistemologically radical, but it has taken the right a while to truly embrace them. Held back by unspoken norms.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
3. The Halbig argument, in my mind, marks the point at which the right finally & completely embraced postmodernism.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
4. It’s like pointing to an apple and saying, "this is an orange." It takes practice to train your mind to be able to do it.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
5. You have to convince yourself, not so much that an apple is an orange, but that there is no such thing as what the object "really" is.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
6. Or rather, that on the question of what the object is, there are *only* competing answers — no objective fact of the matter.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
7. As you get used to thinking this way, you get more bold, moving from highly contestable interpretations to flat matters of fact.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
8. Halbig is endpoint of that process: arguing that a law says something that literally everyone involved knows it doesn’t.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
9. The key is just to brazen it out, to be unaffected by social disapprobation or scolding.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
10. The right has realized that if you just brazen it out, there’s no authority that can "settle the argument." No ref to make the call.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
11. In this way every dispute, even over matters of fact, becomes a contest of power — loudest, best funded, most persistent voices win.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
12. Most on left are congenitally unable to think this way; still vulnerable to scolding, to exhortations to "be reasonable" from VSPs.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
13. Danger for the right, obviously, is that once you lose your mooring to nonpartisan epistemological standards, you are at sea.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
14. There are no signs or markers against which to steer. Epistemology becomes competing tantrums. Projection & reality blur.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
15. You start thinking you really can "make your own reality," forgetting there’s anything rigid in the world that can’t be wished away.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
16. It can be a successful short-term political strategy, but governing a country that way is disastrous, as history repeatedly shows.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
17. The dilemma the left faces: Cling to standards of reason & discourse the other side rejects, or "join 'em" — fight the same way.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
18. Clinging to standards just seems to lead to sputtering losses. But jettisoning them leads to law of the jungle – fight left can’t win.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
19. Default hope among smarter lefties seems to be that right’s strategy will just burn itself out – but it doesn’t seem to be happening.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
20. Idea that tech+sci advanced society could be dragged down by what is effectively a large-scale cult seems unthinkable.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
21. And I mean "unthinkable" literally — media/political elites do not allow themselves to consider it. Cling to idea of normal politics.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
22. But it’s time to start thinking it. Can’t let the ship sink while we insist, "everything’s fine, this will work itself out."
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
23. Problem is, every institution & practice in US politics is designed *not* to acknowledge radical break in politics. Designed for normal.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
24. Hard to even envision, at this point, what it would look like for elites to say, "enough." The both-sides mentality is so fundamental…
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
25. I trust it’s obvious how all this applies to climate change, but 25 is probably long enough for a tweet essay.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
Oh hell, 26. Problem is, this is not a quirk of the American right but a feature of conservative psychology more broadly.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
27. Modern science is all about probabilities; modern global problems all about uncertainties and risks.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
28. But conservative psychology is notoriously averse to ambiguity. Likes clean lines, hierarchy, clear divisions of good & evil.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
29. IOW, the very nature of global, interconnected, complex modern life rubs conservatives the wrong way (& will more & more).
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
30. So there will only be increasing impetus for cons to retreat into fantasy, into simple morality tales & ideological truisms.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
31. And simple morality tales will always yield more motivated, organized constituencies than "it’s complicated" ever will.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
32. All of this is why I think the Halbig fight is a kind of rubicon. If right can brazen through this, that’s it — no restraints left.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
33. If US right is unique, it is only in that structure of US gov’t makes it virtually impossible for citizens to assign responsibility.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
34. See: the way the right’s nihilistic oppositionalism has redounded entirely to Obama’s detriment. Low-info voters can’t untangle.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
35. It’s really difficult to see how these trendlines stop or reverse, absent some serious exogenous shock.
—
David Roberts (@drgrist) November 09, 2014
It used to be that the establishment media slammed this down and acted as the arbiter of what is and what is not accepted versus what is radical departures from political norms. Not anymore. Booman:
The media are going to discover in short order that nothing ever really changes with the Republicans, unless it is that their behavior grows worse. But there’s one thing in the following that I have to strongly dispute:
Republican anger is however masking a serious problem the party has yet to resolve : how to hit back at what it sees a presidential power grab. Other than warning that Obama would “poison the well” for future cooperation, GOP leaders won’t say whether they will use pending federal funding bills as leverage. That route led to a damaging government shutdown for which the GOP paid a heavy political price last year.
Tell me, please, exactly how the GOP paid “a heavy political price” for shutting down the government and hurting our credit rating. They just had a huge victory in the Senate elections, the exact kind of statewide elections where politicians are supposed to be punished for pandering to the worst extremists in their party. They paid no political price and were, in fact, richly rewarded for their irresponsible behavior.
And if there is one single dominant reason for why the GOP got away with acting like five year-old bullies, it is because the media never mentioned their behavior in the 60 days leading up to the elections. If a tree falls in the forest and the only sound heard is about the Ebola virus and ISIS, then no one knows that a tree fell in the forest.
If the media had actually had a discussion about how a Republican-led Congress was likely to behave, then what’s coming wouldn’t be such a surprise to people.
The media has abdicated its Fourth Estate Role in favor of profit and ratings.