Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

You are reversing cause and effect again. The GOP has to endorse delusional ideas to appeal to a delusional base.

You don't think the GOPs actions have further deluded the base in a kind of self perpetuating cycle? They're choosing to engage the bases delusions rather than setting them straight. The Obamacare defending craze is a perfect example.

The GOP needs something for political gain. So they fight health care but spread so much nonsense it ends up forcing their base to drag them even more far outside of the realm of fact

 

[empty vessel]

I'm now confused. I agree parties react to pressure more than any other thing but I don't understand how business is the pressure that is driving the crazy ignorance of reality that has its hands firmly on the steering wheel of the Republican party.

And what made them delusional?

"A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system."

Right wing think tanks are business fronts. Everything pushed by them is pushed by corporate executives and industrialists. Every time you roll your eyes at something put out by the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or any of the dozens of well-funded institutions set up by corporate executives to push delusional nonsense, you are rolling your eyes at the corporate brainwashing of America. The breadth of institutions that have been established by business to influence the American voter is truly astounding. If you are unfamiliar with the effort, you should familiarize yourselves with it.

Corporate America is behind the Great American Mass Delusion of the Early 21st Century. It's a historical event, to be sure.

More from the Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce:

The Neglected Political Arena

In the final analysis, the payoff — short-of revolution — is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.

It is still Marxist doctrine that the “capitalist” countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.

Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of “lobbyist” for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the “forgotten man.”

Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen’s views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to “consumerism” or to the “environment.”

Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.

The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking — not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.

But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.​

 

[empty vessel]

You don't think the GOPs actions have further deluded the base in a kind of self perpetuating cycle? They're choosing to engage the bases delusions rather than setting them straight. The Obamacare defending craze is a perfect example.

Sorry for the double post, but wanted to address this separately. There no doubt exists an interplay between movements and political parties. As a movement grows, and as the political party is forced to respond to it, the political party will even begin to become comprised of members of the movement. Look at the crazy Christine O'Donnell. She was first a delusional member of the Republican base. True, she didn't win election as a Senator, but she did win the Republican nomination. If there are radical Republicans (and there certainly are), the same question remains about how they became radicalized. It can't be by the more moderate party members who preceded them.

 

[Black Mamba]

"A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system."

Right wing think tanks are business fronts. Everything pushed by them is pushed by corporate executives and industrialists. Every time you roll your eyes at something put out by the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or any of the dozens of well-funded institutions set up by corporate executives to push delusional nonsense, you are rolling your eyes at the corporate brainwashing of America. The breadth of institutions that have been established by business to influence the American voter is truly astounding. If you are unfamiliar with the effort, you should familiarize yourselves with it.

Corporate America is behind the Great American Mass Delusion of the Early 21st Century. It's a historical event, to be sure.

Obama is a Muslim rhetoric exists because corporations and proof of this is in its existence itself.

Snore.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama is a Muslim rhetoric exists because corporations and proof of this is in its existence itself.

Snore.

You think very small. If part of the pro-business propaganda is an anti-Democratic party propaganda that feeds into racism and xenophobia, then one might expect that movement to come up with some ridiculous ideas of its own. Why you think this particular idea of Obama being a Muslim that you've latched onto as some disproof that parties respond to people originated with the GOP and was pushed onto its base by the Republican establishment is beyond me. It didn't and wasn't. If anything, the GOP itself is more resistant to this particular delusion than any other. Your argument isn't even coherent, if you are trying to prove that the GOP is the source of mass delusion among the right.

 

[curlyfriski]

Obama is a Muslim rhetoric exists because corporations and proof of this is in its existence itself.

Snore.

His argument could use a lot more evidence, but the idea that the extremism of the Republican base is the result of the propaganda of the Republican leadership strikes me as a very shallow and top-down interpretation of a long-brewing shift in the conservative movement.

 

[Black Mamba]

EV, there goes your tunnel-vision again (the great comedy of accusing others of thinking small). It's quite obvious you don't get what I've said.

His argument could use a lot more evidence, but the idea that the extremism of the Republican base is the result of the propaganda of the Republican leadership strikes me as a very shallow and top-down interpretation of a long-brewing shift in the conservative movement.

It's not the result of the leadership pushing it as propaganda directly, no. Or at least not always.

EV is arguing that the base believing a gov't shutdown to stop obamacare is possible is the result of the base being deluded by big business over the decades. But this has come from the politicians and pundits that have misled their base so much on the issue that they've become delusional. EV's response to this is that those politicians and pundits are simply tapping into the delusions already festering (created by business) but the problem with his argument here is that he assumes it is a necessity of how the party must work. Because the base has become more radicalized, the politicians and pundits must embrace it. But this is not true! There is no such requirement and in fact as a long term strategy it is completely illogical and some in the party have finally realized it. And if they continue down this path, they will become irrelevant in the national state within a decade.

Not everything is as direct as that, like the Obama is a Muslim crap. That's a lot more indirect. But that should have been ridiculed from within the party from the beginning.

For evidence, look how the party responded to the Abortion Rape people like Akin. The party, by and large, actually responded correctly by denouncing it and demanded those guys step out of the race. Unfortunately for the GOP, those guys were idiots with egos and refused to budge, but it completely dispels this notion that the GOP had to embrace it even though what those idiots said is believed by the radicalized base.

But this all stems from the problem of EV's basic principle: its very existence is proof.

 

[curlyfriski]

EV, there goes your tunnel-vision again (the great comedy of accusing others of thinking small). It's quite obvious you don't get what I've said.



It's not the result of the leadership pushing it as propaganda directly, no. Or at least not always.

EV is arguing that the base believing a gov't shutdown to stop obamacare is possible is the result of the base being deluded by big business over the decades. But this has come from the politicians and pundits that have misled their base so much on the issue that they've become delusional. EV's response to this is that those politicians and pundits are simply tapping into the delusions already festering (created by business) but the problem with his argument here is that he assumes it is a necessity of how the party must work. Because the base has become more radicalized, the politicians and pundits must embrace it. But this is not true! There is no such requirement and in fact as a long term strategy it is completely illogical and some in the party have finally realized it. And if they continue down this path, they will become irrelevant in the national state within a decade.

I agree that it is in the long-term interest of the Republican party as a whole to tamp down on the craziness of its base. But from the perspective of, say, a Republican congressman from the Deep South who represents a deeply conservative district, it is very advantageous to regurgitate the fringe talking points, as it weds you to your most fervent political supporters and is a way of fending off primary challenges. The willingness of the conservative grassroots to take down their own leaders makes courting them all the more attractive. In my own admittedly rudimentary conception of how politics operates, politicians are entities interested in two things above all: ensuring their own survival and pursuing their own advancement. When the party leadership is strong enough, it can mitigate the harmful effects of these selfish desires. However, in the case of the modern GOP, the leadership is too weak and the grassroots too powerful to force everyone to work for the long term interests of the party. If you conceive of a political party as not simply a cohesive whole that works in its own interest but instead a collection of actors working to ensure their place in the power structure of the party, then the GOP's dysfunction makes a lot more sense than if it was the result of simple stupidity.

I'm not going to try to guess the root causes of the right wing's hysteria because it's something I'd have to do a lot more research and thinking about.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I assume they were trying to say that his "negro" side was lazy and didn't want to work, a la Romney's original comments.

So it's really multi-layered racism, like an asshole onion.

This made me lol.

 

[The Librarian]

In my own admittedly rudimentary conception of how politics operates, politicians are entities interested in two things above all: ensuring their own survival and pursuing their own advancement.

Any basic politics course in college and a rudimentary glance of congresspersons would show this to not be the case. Politicians of all stripes do many things that go against their voters and pay for it (like voting for the Affordable Care Act). There's also many that are content where they are and have no interest of running for governor/senate/what-have-you, like John Dingell and John Lewis in the House, and recently Daniel Inouye in the Senate.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think the error here is thinking that Fox et al are part of the GOP. They are actually steering the GOP, which has to follow.

You can lump them all together, but the fact is that the Outrage media is benefiting at the expense of the GOP. The GOP is actually kind of in a bad spot. A horribly misled base, thay they have to cater to or lose.

I don't think it's all in the name of corporate interests, but a lot of it is. Certainly the anti-Tax/faux libertarian side is. The social stuff isn't, but the Media Outrage Machine is happy to amp that up too, for the ratings.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

EV is arguing that the base believing a gov't shutdown to stop obamacare is possible is the result of the base being deluded by big business over the decades. But this has come from the politicians and pundits that have misled their base so much on the issue that they've become delusional.

These are not the same people. The politicians go fishing in the pundit-sphere for stuff to latch onto, but that comes from outside the party and politicians themselves. The politicians, even at their worst, are less crazy than their source material.

 

[PhoenixDark]

No, what you describe is the GOP responding to right wing radicalization, which has been created by corporate executives and right wing industrialists. It's been a decades-long process, beginning in the 1970s. What we are seeing now is merely its culmination in the political sphere. Republican politicians aren't responsible for shit except acting like a political party. They're just people capitalizing on all the ground work that's already been laid.

If you were around in the 90s, then you know that the GOP base was already radicalized (albeit likely a smaller proportion than today). It's taken another decade for the GOP to fully respond to it.

I'm LTTP but I agree with Empty Vessel. Although I'd point out right wing radicalization was heavy prominent in the 1960s. If you go back and read what the far right was saying about JFK it'll be eerily similar to what is being said of Obama now.

(this was passed around Dallas before Kennedy's final visit)

The Tea Party is simply a less academic John Birch Society, who thought Eisenhower wasn't conservative enough. So this has been going on for a very long time, and of course corporations use all this to their advantage. The difference is that the ultimate fear of those early nativist groups is coming true: the white population is shrinking, diversity has become mainstream, and we have a president whose mere existence is a product of both factors.

 

[JesseEwiak]

As been said before on this thread I think, there's a certain percentage of the American public who thinks any win by the Democratic Party is illegitimate because it's the Democratic Party. FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton all got the same kinds of attacks that Obama did, only now, there's some racism behind it as well.

 

[kehs]

Sanya Gupta going back on Marijuana claims.

- Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.

I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.

Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."

Well, I am here to apologize.

...

Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html

 

[PhoenixDark]

speaking of extremism

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s primary challenger retweeted a tweet that calls him “Nancy boy,” according to the Sunlight Foundation’s Politwoops, which monitors politicians’ deleted tweets.

Nancy Mace on Tuesday tweeted: “RT @PaulSteel4: @nancymace we support you here in Florida. Nancy Mace vs Nancy boy graham.”

“Nancy boy” is an early 20th century term, often considered derogatory, for an effeminate or homosexual man.

Mace, who announced on Saturday she will be challenging Graham in the primary, deleted the tweet after 10 minutes, Politwoops said. Mace’s account is not a verified account.

The Mace campaign did not return calls for a comment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ham-challenger-tweet-95278.html#ixzz2bODZKtbm

 

[el retorno]

Sanya Gupta going back on Marijuana claims.




http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html

In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.

While investigating, I realized something else quite important. Medical marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing about it for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles, mostly documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were written between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of medical marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation," among other things.

This pisses me off. They knew this stuff way back then but still launched the drug war using falsehoods and lies.

 

[User 406]

One thing to keep in mind is that to get the policies you want, you need to get politicians who will implement those policies elected. This does not always translate into simply marketing the policy to voters.

All the crazy right wing hysteria that has been whipped up may not directly benefit big business per se, but what it does do is keep a sizable group of voters angry, engaged, and adamantly opposed to any candidates, policies, or ideas from the left, no matter how much they might benefit from them. So yes, corporate funded right wing media pushing the OBAMA SOCIALIST MUSLIN line is an intentional tactic to help elect politicians that will work towards deregulation and the defunding of the social safety net.

Sure, it's backfiring quite a bit right now. But it's true that for decades the economic right wing has been using the Southern Strategy to radicalize formally populist voters into voting for pro-business candidates who pander to their social conservatism. The crazy isn't the goal, it's the tool.

 

[The Librarian]

NSA is searching through the contents of emails Americans send and receive outside the country, according to the New York Times.

 

[empty vessel]

One thing to keep in mind is that to get the policies you want, you need to get politicians who will implement those policies elected. This does not always translate into simply marketing the policy to voters.

I think that's less important than building a successful movement. A lot of current Republicans are not as crazy as the party has forced them to act. Politicians are closer to empty vessels than they are to righteous idealists. While it's not unimportant who is elected, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. I'll take Nixon in an era with strong and active progressive movements over Obama in an era without them any day of the week.

 

[Frank the Great]

Politicians are closer to empty vessels than they are to righteous idealists.

Seriously though this is completely true. Politicians don't mean dick. They are there to get re-elected, and they will do anything to accomplish that goal. If they have to cater to a tea party movement, they will. The solution is not to simply elect progressive politicians, instead there must be a strong progressive movement that scares politicians into representing their values. Same way many politicians have been scared into representing tea party values.

Americans need to stop blaming the politicians for our nation's problems. The problem is us.

 

[el retorno]

NSA is searching through the contents of emails Americans send and receive outside the country, according to the New York Times.

I'm really confused on what exactly this means as the times (along with many of these articles keeps mixing up all these programs). But if its as the times describes its the closest thing to actually violating the 4th amendment as we've seen. Funny enough it didn't come from snowden.

This is something congress needs to look at and potentially stop.

 

[el retorno]

Seriously though this is completely true. Politicians don't mean dick. They are there to get re-elected, and they will do anything to accomplish that goal. If they have to cater to a tea party movement, they will. The solution is not to simply elect progressive politicians, instead there must be a strong progressive movement that scares politicians into representing their values. Same way many politicians have been scared into representing tea party values.

Americans need to stop blaming the politicians for our nation's problems. The problem is us.

While a lot of the time they do only act as vessels this isn't always true. It just isn't.
There is another model of representation. The trustee model.

They need to be forced or challenged but sometimes they really do act out of their convictions.

 

[APF]

Of course the person matters. The problem is they have to get elected, they have to work with other people, they are beholden to their party and their backers, etc. Independent ideology can only get you so far, and it's not that far.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think that's less important than building a successful movement. A lot of current Republicans are not as crazy as the party has forced them to act. Politicians are closer to empty vessels than they are to righteous idealists. While it's not unimportant who is elected, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. I'll take Nixon in an era with strong and active progressive movements over Obama in an era without them any day of the week.

I'll take Drone Strikes over Cambodia carpet bombing any day.

Nixon also closed the door on socialized heathcare for decades.

I get your point (that the cultural environment matters a lot) but let's not get crazy here.

 

[The Librarian]

Seriously though this is completely true. Politicians don't mean dick. They are there to get re-elected, and they will do anything to accomplish that goal. If they have to cater to a tea party movement, they will. The solution is not to simply elect progressive politicians, instead there must be a strong progressive movement that scares politicians into representing their values. Same way many politicians have been scared into representing tea party values.

Americans need to stop blaming the politicians for our nation's problems. The problem is us.

Individual politicians do matter. It's why specific caucuses form to push for the interest of specific groups. It's why female politicians fight more for women's rights than male politicians.

 

[Frank the Great]

Individual politicians do matter. It's why specific caucuses form to push for the interest of specific groups. It's why female politicians fight more for women's rights than male politicians.

The caucuses push for the interests of groups that will help get them re-elected. Female politicians do not fight more for women's rights, there are plenty of anti-woman female conservatives. It's just that women are more likely to be elected in jurisdictions that favor women's rights, so there is a perception that electing a female will advance women's interests. But that is about as true as stating that electing black people will advance black people's interests--look at Allen West or Herman Cain.

Every single politician pushes for the values of their constituents, be they voters or interest groups (including industry lobbyists). And they better, or else they would not get re-elected. This is a job and a career for them, that they fight to hold onto for life.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not sure how we ended up having a "but is it really art?" argument in PoliGAF.

You might prefer to say the American right has become reactionary rather than saying that the GOP has become reactionary, but so what? The GOP is the party of the American right. The two are not neatly severable. In fact, a lot of what's been happening in the last few years is best explained by the GOP coming to discover that the two are not neatly severable! So what benefit do we get from drawing the distinction?

It happens that I believe that there are many pragmatic/nihilistic politicians in the GOP who would really prefer to stop being reactionary because they'd rather win elections, but until they actually successfully take control of the party, I don't think it really matters. For example, I believe that Boehner is one of these pragmatists, but in a practical sense, if he's holding to the Hastert Rule, he is indistinguishable from a true brother of Calhoun.

 

[el retorno]

When did Brian Beutler start writing for salon?

 

[B-Dubs]

Sanya Gupta going back on Marijuana claims.




http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html

I've been looking forward to this documentary. It was fairly obvious that this would happen, Gupta's not a dumb man so it makes sense that when confronted with the facts (especially considering he sought out these facts himself) he would change his mind.

 

[User 406]

I think that's less important than building a successful movement. A lot of current Republicans are not as crazy as the party has forced them to act. Politicians are closer to empty vessels than they are to righteous idealists. While it's not unimportant who is elected, it's only a small piece of the puzzle. I'll take Nixon in an era with strong and active progressive movements over Obama in an era without them any day of the week.

That's right, what I guess I failed to express was that the movement in this case is the wedding of rabid social conservatism to pro-business policy, and that's the reason why you have politicians who will cater to that movement. It also helps that in order for politicians to even communicate their pandering to the voters, they need money, and business is right there ready to fund them in exchange for some nice quiet rewriting of certain bills that the public would find too esoteric to care about.

In short, I'm trying to support your argument that the right wing movement, crazy parts and all, has been directly cultivated by capitalist economic interests.

 

[The Librarian]

The caucuses push for the interests of groups that will help get them re-elected.

But it takes those individual politicians to organize, put in the time and effort to focus on particular issues. Bernie Sanders formed the CPC in the House because he cared about certain issues. Of course politicians do things to help them get re-elected! They're politicians! But within that you see certain politicians go after certain causes because they care more about them. Like female politicians and women's issues. Like Harkin and Americans with disabilities.

Female politicians do not fight more for women's rights

Uh huh. Sure. And I'm pretty sure the Blunt amendment would've been as close to not being rejected as it was if half of Congress was female.

When did Brian Beutler start writing for salon?

This week. He left TPM last Friday. Gonna miss him there, but of course I'll follow him where he goes!

 

[PhoenixDark]

The caucuses push for the interests of groups that will help get them re-elected. Female politicians do not fight more for women's rights, there are plenty of anti-woman female conservatives. It's just that women are more likely to be elected in jurisdictions that favor women's rights, so there is a perception that electing a female will advance women's interests. But that is about as true as stating that electing black people will advance black people's interests--look at Allen West.

Every single politician pushes for the values of their constituents, be they voters or interest groups (including industry lobbyists). And they better, or else they would not get re-elected. This is a job and a career for them, that they fight to hold onto for life.

Yup.

Which is why gun control fails btw. For all the hype generated by Bloomberg, ultimately there's 20 years of evidence that NRA advocates dominate the polls on election day when "threatened." Politicians will remain scared until that is proven wrong in an election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

double post

Uh huh. Sure. And I'm pretty sure the Blunt amendment would've been as close to not being rejected as it was if half of Congress was female.

What type of argument is this? If those 48 male republicans were replaced by 48 female republicans they'd be serving the same constituents in the same red states, and would vote the exact same.

Likewise the female Ben Nelson would have as many balls as the male Ben Nelson, thus voting the same way. Bob Casey is a pro-life democrat and has been successful in PA thanks to that, to a degree.

 

[Fenderputty]

The Dems are doing the same? They're badly misinforming their voters on things like the religion of politicians? Or that they can control the House legislation or something?

Well they do lie to us about the Drug War, why we do or don't need it and what negative effects it has. There's no honest discussion about the private prison complex because of it. There's no honest discussion about why crack is a higher class drug than coke. There's little honest discussion about race and how that relates to the drug war as well.

They were also full of shit about single payer. They're full of shit about filibusterer reform. They're full of shit about campaign finance reform. It's pretty disingenuous to imply dems don't misinform their base. They may not be saying things like, "John McCain is really a white supremacist", but IMO, that's because the Dem base is less likely to respond to such weak and obvious criticisms.

I also agree with EV. The business and corporate world is also infecting the democratic party as well. Which is why they lied about the things I listed above. Dems have no reason to support single payer ... it would bite the same hands that feed both them and the repubs. Both politicical groups seems to be walking a fine line between supporting their business interests backing their campaigns and their constituents who vote for them. Dems have a harder time with this since the democratic party doesn't always align with business interests as well as the republican party does.

I also believe that a damn good portion of the craziness on the right is driven directly by right wing media, which is owned by those business interests EV was talking about. FOX news on the TV and take your pick over the air waves. Rush, Hanity etc. etc. have driven the narrative more so than anyone else IMO. Hell, they were driving the Republican primaries trying as hard as they could to get the craziest repub the nom. They latched on to a new candidate until they all imploded and eventually were left with Romney.

The social aspects don't benefit big business directly. However, they're base is already radicalized. Not pandering to the bases social interests could negatively impact how effective the party is at accomplishing the interests of big business. How many voters out there vote right because of religious or moral or even racists reasons regardless of the negative implications it would have on the their own financial interests. The party has to pander to these people as well.

 

[Frank the Great]

Uh huh. Sure. And I'm pretty sure the Blunt amendment would've been as close to not being rejected as it was if half of Congress was female.

You misunderstood my point. I meant that women representatives are not necessarily better on women's rights.

The Blunt amendment would still fail if Congress were half composed of women, because the majority of those women would be Michelle Bachmann types from very conservative districts.

Edit: PD (PP? . . . doesn't sound right) made essentially the same point I'm making.

 

[Fenderputty]

Seriously though this is completely true. Politicians don't mean dick. They are there to get re-elected, and they will do anything to accomplish that goal. If they have to cater to a tea party movement, they will. The solution is not to simply elect progressive politicians, instead there must be a strong progressive movement that scares politicians into representing their values. Same way many politicians have been scared into representing tea party values.

Americans need to stop blaming the politicians for our nation's problems. The problem is us.

But how do you change the "US" portion when that portion is also being distorted by larger entities? How do you get the nation to turn off AM radio, pick up a non biased article and formulate their own opinion on the matter?

 

[The Librarian]

You misunderstood my point. I meant that women representatives are not necessarily better on women's rights.

Sorry about being snappy before. In some cases, yes, that's true, but I originally meant to say female issues. Female politicians do spend more time on women's issues, pay more attention to women's issues, talk more about issues concerning women, and introduce more bills that concern women. This is pretty well documented in It Still Takes a Candidate by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox. This is why it's important for Congress to be diverse with many different backgrounds, because if you're Hispanic, or black, or a woman, you're more likely to focus on issues concerning those groups than if you're a white male. Different people elected to Congress bring different experiences and thus focus on different issues more than others.

The Blunt amendment would still fail if Congress were half composed of women, because the majority of those women would be Michelle Bachmann types from very conservative districts.

But it would've failed by an even greater margin. In the 112th Congress there were five female Republican senators. 2/5ths of them, Snowe and Murkowski, either voted against it or would've voted against it if it came up again. When the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed Congress in 2009, there were four Republican votes – Hutchinson, Snowe, Collins, and Murkowski. All female. All of the Republican women voted for it. All Republican men voted against it.

 

[rocketknight]

double post


What type of argument is this? If those 48 male republicans were replaced by 48 female republicans they'd be serving the same constituents in the same red states, and would vote the exact same.

Likewise the female Ben Nelson would have as many balls as the male Ben Nelson, thus voting the same way. Bob Casey is a pro-life democrat and has been successful in PA thanks to that, to a degree.

Women wouldn't say so many dumb things about rape and their own bodies, though. They're less likely to be fundamentally wrong about their own biology, I would hope. I would also bet that would translate into different positions on at least some issues, regardless of the frothing manbeasts in their districts.

Basically I would love to even have a chance to be proven wrong in practice, because that would mean more women in the legislature to start with, which would in turn mean something gave way somewhere and everybody as a whole magically agreed to be slightly less shitty.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's worth noting Snowe and Collins are somewhat liberal on women's rights issues, and represent blue states. Murkowski has a history of bucking her party on a variety of issues, hence why they kicked her off the ballot. And Hutchinson is somewhat moderate on similar issues. They aren't representative of most female republicans.

Women wouldn't say so many dumb things about rape and their own bodies, though. They're less likely to be fundamentally wrong about their own biology, I would hope. I would also bet that would translate into different positions on at least some issues, regardless of the frothing manbeasts in their districts.

Basically I would love to even have a chance to be proven wrong in practice, because that would mean more women in the legislature to start with, which would in turn mean something gave way somewhere and everybody as a whole magically agreed to be slightly less shitty.

Check out some of Michelle Bachman's statements on abortion and HPV vaccines. Or Ann Wagner, or the state rep in California who recently said

Before arriving at the state GOP's spring convention here, Celeste Greig told this newspaper that pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized."

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/c...-leader-steps-into-rape-pregnancy-controversy

Saying stupid stuff about women has more to do with ideology than gender. Listen to a random evangelical female preacher's sermon on youtube for more examples.

 

[Diablos]

I LOL'd

 

[rocketknight]

It's worth noting Snowe and Collins are somewhat liberal on women's rights issues, and represent blue states.


Check out some of Michelle Bachman's statements on abortion and HPV vaccines. Or Ann Wagner, or the state rep in California who recently said

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/c...-leader-steps-into-rape-pregnancy-controversy

Saying stupid stuff about women has more to do with ideology than gender. Listen to a random evangelical female preacher's sermon on youtube for more examples.

Yeah, absolutely Bachman is a moron, but realistically she's an outlier moron among both genders. If half of Congress were women, I'm positive things would be different. We'd probably have more people who had directly experienced rape and sexual harassment. We'd probably have more people who had to seriously think about bith control and abortion on a personal rather than ideological level. We'd probably have more people who had to deal with discrimination at all levels. We'd probably have more people who had been victim to domestic violence. I'm not saying that things would be radically different (although they might be), but personal experiences are a pretty strong argument against a lot of conservative magical thinking with regards to gender issues, and that should absolutely sway things a certain way with a bigger population of women lawmakers.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, absolutely Bachman is a moron, but realistically she's an outlier moron among both genders. If half of Congress were women, I'm positive things would be different. We'd probably have more people who had directly experienced rape and sexual harassment. We'd probably have more people who had to seriously think about bith control and abortion on a personal rather than ideological level. We'd probably have more people who had to deal with discrimination at all levels. We'd probably have more people who had been victim to domestic violence. I'm not saying that things would be radically different (although they might be), but personal experiences are a pretty strong argument against a lot of conservative magical thinking with regards to gender issues, and that should absolutely sway things a certain way with a bigger population of women lawmakers.

I guess the simplest way I could explain it is: if you replaced all 46 current republican senators with black people, at least 44 would be Allen West/Alan Keyes types. Experiences have little to do with it if your ideology exists to deny said experiences.

 

[Oblivion]

Good god...one of my co-workers went on an epic chain e-mail talking point spree.

Give me strength, poligaf.

 

[RoninChaos]

I don't remember you ever saying anything like this to me, but Georgia's demographics will make it a blue state soon enough. Obama got 47% of the vote with heavy campaigning in 2008. In 2012 he didn't do shit and still got 46% while shedding 3% of the vote nationwide. He's done better than any Democrat in Georgia since Jimmy Carter, and that includes Bill Clinton who won it by virtue of Ross Perot. Georgia will go to the Democrats, if not in 2014 then somewhere down the line. It's definitely closer than Texas and Arizona, two states the media and commentators looove talking about.

Do you mean in presidential elections or all politics? A HUGE reason for the vote here in GA is a huge chunk of our biggest city is not run by the backwards ass rednecks that live in the rest of the state. The educated people live in the city and they vote for obama, but I don't think you'll see nearly a huge turn out next presidential election. Further, if you mean in local politics, it would take 50 years for that to happen here.

 

[el retorno]

McConnell's campaign manager doesn't even want to be working on his campagin

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/mitch-mcconnell-campaign-manager-im.html

Jesse Benton on Mitch McConnell: "I'm sorta holding my nose for 2 years"

 

[el retorno]

Also did you guys know it was really liberals who supported slavery? Also Calhoun was our guy!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/06/The-Pro-Slavery-Roots-of-the-Modern-Left

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Also did you guys know it was really liberals who supported slavery? Also Calhoun was our guy!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/06/The-Pro-Slavery-Roots-of-the-Modern-Left

Have we won the war against Eurasia yet?

 

[APF]

I guess the simplest way I could explain it is: if you replaced all 46 current republican senators with black people, at least 44 would be Allen West/Alan Keyes types. Experiences have little to do with it if your ideology exists to deny said experiences.

I more agree than disagree, but I also think it's more complicated than we're allowing in this thread. A Republican party that would elect 46 black Senators would be a completely different party in many ways progressives would find favorable. That doesn't mean they'd be "liberal" however.

 

[rocketknight]

I guess the simplest way I could explain it is: if you replaced all 46 current republican senators with black people, at least 44 would be Allen West/Alan Keyes types. Experiences have little to do with it if your ideology exists to deny said experiences.

I don't know. I've simply seen so many people for whom the only cure for their ignorance is personal experience, and statistically women are (unfortunately) going to have more experiences in this sector that would encourage them to challenge Conservative Magical Thinking. Again, I'm not saying it would be huge, or that the foaming freepers won't succeed at occasionally electing foaming freepers, or that it's impossible for women to be drunk on the same Kool-Aid as dude Tea Partiers, just that it's much more likely to have more people willing to consider sane women's issues policies among a population that contains more women.