Politics.935 - Republican efforts to sabotage government

A much edited excerpt of an interview by Bill Moyers:

Thomas Frank: If you want to ask why does government so often fail us in America, there are basically two answers out there.

One is the conservative answer. Government fails because it's the nature of government to fail. But if you want to look a little bit deeper, it’s because government has been systematically sabotaged.

If you hate and despise government employees, and you understand them to be intrinsically wicked, and at the same time you believe passionately in the near-magical powers of the market, what do you do? Well, the answer's obvious. You outsource the Federal workforce.

BILL MOYERS: Have we reached a stage where you make things bad enough that people despair and then you manipulate their despair to your own advantage in the next election?

THOMAS FRANK: It's a cynical town, Washington, D.C. And the conservative movement tends to be deeply, deeply, deeply cynical about government. It’s also deeply idealistic about “the market.” The market can do no wrong, almost by definition. But government they regard as a kind of criminal gang. Most conservatives compare government to criminals. It happens all the time.

Correspondingly, taxation (by government employees) is a form of theft. It's as bad as a mugger in the street saying, "Give me your money." And America is pretty much unique among the nations in that half of our political system is basically dedicated to the destruction of the government – to the extent that Republicans are in power, it’s a kind of destruction from within. I don't know any other country where that's the case. One problem with this is that there are plenty of countries where government works really, really well. In India, which we don't think of as being an advanced industrial society, their banks didn't all go bust in the latest downturn. Now, why is that?

Because their equivalent of the Federal Reserve was not obsessed with deregulation and stopping the enforcement of regulations. They weren't doing any of those things. They were keeping a very tight lid on it. Government can work. It works all the time, but because of Republican sabotage, not always so well in America.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Let me ask you to broaden that canvas and ask, with what's the matter with America that we tolerate all of this?

THOMAS FRANK: I think a large part of it has to do with the chronic historical forgetting. We just elected Barack Obama and he had quite a mandate -- the biggest majority of any President since Reagan. And now a year later, the public is already turning on him.

Another part of it is that the conservative argument about government and freedom is very compelling when they say that something like “any proposal for a national health program is a violation of our freedom.” Americans don't like to hear that their freedom is being violated. That is a hot button argument. Now, the obvious response that Democrats could make is: “This will actually expand human freedom, not limit it.” But they never say that.

BILL MOYERS: So, part of the problem with America is the Democratic Party?

THOMAS FRANK: A huge part of the problem, because look, for the conservatives the whole point of their party is to attack government, attack the state, and encourage cynicism about government . . and then surreptitiously wreck it when they're in charge, as a way of proving their point.

Democrats never defend the state. They never come out and say, "No, no. It's important to have government. It's important to have a Department of Labor. A good and well functioning government increases your freedom and in no way limits it." They never fight back consistently.

BILL MOYERS: Why not?

THOMAS FRANK: There are members of Congress here and there that do. But by and large, the prominent leading Democrats in our society don't fight back. Why is that? It’s because that would get them in trouble with their funders. The power of corporate money is huge in America’s political system. Despite all the efforts that have been made over the years to get money out of politics, it's still immensely powerful.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/transcript1.html

According to this recent article on banking reform: - ...Back in December top Republican leaders huddled with bank lobbyists to coordinate their campaigns against reform... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01krugman.html

I'm fond, maybe inordinately, with converses. When told that all ravens are black, I instantly wonder if the teller thinks that all black things are ravens, or that all non-black things are non-ravens. When I hear people insisting that money should be removed from politics, I tend to agree. But what do we do about those who want to assure that politics is firmly involved in the money? When people mouth wordinesses about getting the government out of its interferences with the free market, do they really *believe that*?" If they only say that when they think it serves their interests or their wallets, why should we listen? Why should anyone?

{4} Sometimes I ask them. If they say that all ravens are black, and I ask them "Do you think all things that aren't black aren't ravens?" and they say "No", then I think they don't really know *what* to think. Or how.

{Politics.935.6}: Fianlly a clear voice {doorman} Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:03:06 EST (1 line)

If they say that all ravens are black, and I ask them "Do you think all things that aren't black aren't ravens?" and they say "No", >>>> do they ever respond "why would you ask such a silly question? Do you really think I'm a moron?"

They might not be morons {7} if they answer that they don't believe both that all ravens are black and that all non-black things are non-ravens. I've actually met some non-morons *who said* they didn't believe both, but did believe that every raven is black.** But they don't understand how "all", "not" and "if ..., then ___" work. Many non-morons don't. I've encountered people who say things like "Children of narcissists are almost never narcissists" and who think they are not likely to be narcissistic, because their parents were. It didn't occur to them that it could be that they are narcissists, and if they were (and the statement is true) that would be strong evidence that they are mistaken about their parents. I've even run into people who believe that all water is liquid at 70 F, but who balk at the inference that the surfaces of their desks are at 70 F, so they mustn't be made of water. "You can't reason that way!" The Republican who's interested in what follows from what might be a rare bird. I've gone to Republican sponsored websites, and posted remarks to the effect that even if a previously written argument has a true conclusion, the argument given isn't valid. (And I'd specify a counterexample, or two or three, showing that the argument isn't valid.) More than once I've got back this response: "But Dave! That won't make any difference. Democrats are too stupid to pay any attention to whether an argument is logically correct!!" ** "All non-black things are non-ravens" is actually an example that's been used to confound several commonsense theories about what the confirmation of a scientific hypothesis consists in.

They might not be morons {7} if they answer that they don't believe both that all ravens are black and that all non-black things are non-ravens. >>> the point of my question {7} was not to determine what percentage of people are morons, by whatever definition. My point was that you seem unaware of how condescending it is to ask a question which *presumes* that people are morons. the practical utility of your question is that it helps you identify morons, at the cost of insulting every non-moron of whom you ask the question. Those non-morons would be entirely justified in ending the conversation and backing away from you slowly. that would leave you to converse with the actual morons. It might also explain why it seems to you that the world is full of morons and empty of non-morons.

The matter of morons was introduced by someone else, and not by me. The matter of morons is now colloquial, having been introduced into psychology long ago for basically political purposes; it's now antique in that discipline, having been as conclusively discredited as discreditation usually goes there. But rather than delve the history of the term, we can speak with the vulgar as long as we think with the learned. Maybe everyone here *knows* that "If ..., then ___" is *logically equivalent* to "If not ___, then not ..." even without ever having seen a proof of that fact. But I can report that many beginning students have been astonished to see, say by a truth-table done on the chalkboard, that they are indeed provably equivalent. Some at least of those were not morons. The matter of "All non-black things are non-ravens" turned out interesting regarding induction, and is in particular relevant to induction by enumeration. It was thought that every case of a black raven confirms** the hypothesis that all ravens are black. It was similarly thought that any instance that confirms a hypothesis that is implied by the major hypothesis also confirms the original. Hence finding a black raven in Britain confirmed the hypothesis that all ravens are black, since "All ravens are black" (with suitable ancillary but agreed premises) entails that all British ravens are black. But here comes a problem. Since "All ravens are black" entails "All non-black things are non-ravens" finding a piece of chalk that's not black, will by the supposition confirm the hypothesis that all ravens are black. Anyone who thinks this problem is not a real problem or is easily solved is invited to propose a solution. Yet Republicans, who are easily convinced that the ornithologist must give up the hypothesis that all ravens are black when an albino raven is detected, will usually be found to infer various things using induction by enumeration. They are not *necessarily* corruptly trying to sabotage various governments if they do this, but it pretty obviously helps. It's pretty obvious that regarding such matters as economics, evolution, and global warming, it's easier to corrupt governments if the corrupters and the population are ignorant of the ways the sciences actually work. ** "Confirms" here is not the same as "conclusively confirms" but stands as short for "is evidence for".

{Politics.935.14}: place your bets, gentlepeople {paracletus} Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:49:09 EST (3 lines)

On Thursday on the ED SHOW: - The middle class in America today is collapsing. People are growing desperate. And the Republicans‘ top priority is massive, massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38490572/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

- The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return. Gore Vidal

- As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests. Gore Vidal

<I hate to be rude, but isn't it the truth?> No. That's just a naive, paranoid view of the world, typical of those who reside at the political extremes. In reality, the world isn't a giant con game.

So you don't think that the mega-rich and mega-corps manipulate the press that they themselves own? You don't believe that they employ the best propaganda artists that Madison Avenue can produce to manipulate public opinion? You don't believe that the 75+% of the US population that only gets their news from the boob tube believe a manipulated version of world events designed to enrich those same media owners? If so, then you must believe that the mega-rich and mega-corps are the luckiest and most incompetent people on the planet, because there really isn't any other way to explain their power.