Can a Political Movement Go Bad

[bloodyminded]

I do think, in general, MSM is left of center. Fox news, the famous "Fair and Balanced" channel which is a joke of course, is extreme right wing. But why is it the viewership leader? And I'm not being a smart-ass or defending them. It blows me away. I consider myself to be a, by Canadian standards fairly extreme right winger but they are on the loony fringe. Yet their ratings are sky high. It blows me away.

I'm not quite sure of the reason for the popularity of FOX news, but I personally don't see it as so utterly distinct from other mainstream news media. Some details aside, it is in the larger sense not that profoundly different, I don't think.

But I still don't consider the media to be left-leaning. (Nor right-leaning, just to clarify.)

I think Chomsky/Herman's "Propaganda model" (based overwhelmingly on "liberal" outlets like the NYTimes and Washington Post) remains the gold standard. News media, with minor variaitons at the margins, supports and defends the Establishment Power of which it is a part. When we start to wonder aloud why these corporations attack their own reason-for-being, I think we're asking the wrong question, and aren't understanding the bigger picture at all.

[The_Squid]

...Ron Paul. He will be the Tea Party candidate for 2012, he is a republican but he ran for president as a libertarian in the past.

How can anyone think that the Tea Party is a libertarian movement? Especially after the latest batch of candidates? These people are more like social-conservatives. They are more interested in social engineering (on Jesus' bahalf) than reducing government and government interference!

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/08/palin-drives-libertarians-out-of-tea-party/

The Tea Party has become the extreme right of the Republican Party... and those ain't no libertarians!!

[RNG]

How can anyone think that the Tea Party is a libertarian movement? Especially after the latest batch of candidates? These people are more like social-conservatives. They are more interested in social engineering (on Jesus' bahalf) than reducing government and government interference!

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/08/palin-drives-libertarians-out-of-tea-party/

The Tea Party has become the extreme right of the Republican Party... and those ain't no libertarians!!

My understanding of Libertarians vs. GOP is that the Libertarians don't do the family values, moral, no abortion, gays are icky shit. Just smarten up the economy but stay the **** out of my bedroom. The Tea Party is way to fractured to be able to be characterized.

Edited October 6, 2010 by RNG

[ToadBrother]

My understanding of Libertarians vs. GOP is that the Libertarians don't do the family values, moral, no abortion, gays are icky shit. Just smarten up the economy but stay the **** out of my bedroom. The Tea Party is way to fractured to be able to be characterized.

Historically Libertarians have been the useful idiots of the Right. As to the Tea Party, you're probably right, there seems to be everything from Ron Paulite Libertarians to disgruntled Conservatives to religious nuts. Still, all three of these groups hardly pose a structural problem for the Democrats. The Dems may see losses, but they've lost before, it's part of the cycle. But the Tea Party represents a dangerous radicalization of the Republicans. It seems a growing possibility that the lunatics may finally gain control of the asylum.

I still can't quite figure out why some of the Republican supporters around here actually think this is all good. They act as if guys like Rand Paul aren't off-kilter nuts, when it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that some of these Tea Party candidates are, to be blunt, quite bananas.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... But the Tea Party represents a dangerous radicalization of the Republicans. It seems a growing possibility that the lunatics may finally gain control of the asylum.

Since when is democracy dangerous?

I still can't quite figure out why some of the Republican supporters around here actually think this is all good. They act as if guys like Rand Paul aren't off-kilter nuts, when it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that some of these Tea Party candidates are, to be blunt, quite bananas.

Will you be voting in the American election?

[RNG]

Anyone who admits that it isn't right to spend other people's money is OK in my books.

[ToadBrother]

Since when is democracy dangerous?

Ask Socrates.

Will you be voting in the American election?

Nope. Will you?

[ToadBrother]

Anyone who admits that it isn't right to spend other people's money is OK in my books.

But that money was produced by a society that allowed creation of wealth. In other words, society is owed its due for the money that any individual has.

[bush_cheney2004]

But that money was produced by a society that allowed creation of wealth. In other words, society is owed its due for the money that any individual has.

What? Care to explain this in more detail? Or don't bother, because "society" is owed nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope. Will you?

If I feel like it....but either way, the last thing I need is somebody telling me what is good or bad when they have no standing or skin in the game.

[ToadBrother]

If I feel like it....but either way, the last thing I need is somebody telling me what is good or bad when they have no standing or skin in the game.

Then don't read my posts. But it seems pretty hypocritical to constantly bitch about Canadians making comments on American politics when you've made no lack of comments on Canadian politics. As it is, tough s**t. I'll post what I like where I like, and unless the moderator has a problem, you can take it or leave it. It's not like you've got a stake in a Canadian political forum

Edited October 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

What? Care to explain this in more detail? Or don't bother, because "society" is owed nothing.

It would be pretty damned to accumulate wealth of the wider society didn't set protections in place for it. The wider society creates the environment, and that environment can only be maintained by taxes. That's the way the system has worked since we first start building civilizations.

[bloodyminded]

Here's an interesting take by Matt Taibbi, on the way the Republican machine is well on its way to co-opting the Tea Party movement:

Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush's gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending. From the outset, the events were organized and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which was quietly working to co-opt the new movement and deploy it to the GOP's advantage. Taking the lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, who as chair of a group called FreedomWorks helped coordinate Tea Party rallies across the country. A succession of Republican Party insiders and money guys make up the guts of FreedomWorks: Its key members include billionaire turd Steve Forbes and former Republican National Committee senior economist Matt Kibbe.

Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, FreedomWorks was basically just an AstroTurfing-lobbying outfit whose earlier work included taking money from Verizon to oppose telecommunications regulation. Now the organization's sights were set much higher: In the wake of a monstrous economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks — which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife — had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform.

Joining them in the fight was another group, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the billionaire David Koch, whose Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in America. In addition to dealing in plastics, chemicals and petroleum, Koch has direct interests in commodities trading and financial services. He also has a major stake in pushing for deregulation, as his companies have been fined multiple times by the government, including a 1999 case in which Koch Industries was held to have stolen oil from federal lands, lying about oil purchases some 24,000 times.

So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul "Tea Parties," but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey "unconstitutional" orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It's a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at. A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.

[bush_cheney2004]

It would be pretty damned to accumulate wealth of the wider society didn't set protections in place for it. The wider society creates the environment, and that environment can only be maintained by taxes. That's the way the system has worked since we first start building civilizations.

Well that's a horse of a different color, having little to do with "society". Avoiding taxes is a full time business. I don't know why you are afraid to just come out and say..."socialism".

[Michael Hardner]

Here's an interesting take by Matt Taibbi, on the way the Republican machine is well on its way to co-opting the Tea Party movement:

My response to that article is "everything old is new again".

[bloodyminded]

My response to that article is "everything old is new again".

Yeah. Some cliches are cliches for a reason. (I apologize for not knowing how to place the acute accent; it's not my spelling ignorance at fault, but my technical ignorance.)

[ToadBrother]

Well that's a horse of a different color, having little to do with "society". Avoiding taxes is a full time business. I don't know why you are afraid to just come out and say..."socialism".

Because paying your due to society; whether taxes, jury duty, stopping at stop signs, and so on are hardly socialism. But there's one constant throughout history, without wealth redistribution of some kind, you end up with a restive underclass. Sensible folks in the 19th century, as the wave of constitutional governments crossed Europe realized, for better or for worse, that that situation is what leads to aristocrats lighter the weight of their heads, and compromised. Poor Laws were expanded, child labor laws enacted, labor protection laws came into being to prevent some of the nastier abuses, but the idea that the upper classes needed to do their part was hardly new in and of itself (ie. Noblesse oblige).

The genius of modern Western civilization, even in the United States, was of merging socialist principles within the framework of free enterprise. Obviously every country has its own mix, and the States certainly isn't a low-end spender on social programs, but peculiarities both structural and cultural sometimes seem to make it less efficient. But what's the alternative; the Libertarian notion of freedom, which seems to translate into "the freedom to starve to death" when applied without at least some recognition that some wealth redistribution is essential.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah. Some cliches are cliches for a reason. (I apologize for not knowing how to place the acute accent; it's not my spelling ignorance at fault, but my technical ignorance.)

The pitchfork crowd used to be roused by the Democrats, and they stormed the castle in the early 20th century making the tax rates for the wealthiest earning Americans very onerous. I have yet to understand how the economy boomed so highly despite those rates, and how expenditures are paid for now.

Nobody knows, which means today's economics is no more useful to us than the medieval village wizard's explanation of future events by examining bird feathers.

[bloodyminded]

The pitchfork crowd used to be roused by the Democrats, and they stormed the castle in the early 20th century making the tax rates for the wealthiest earning Americans very onerous. I have yet to understand how the economy boomed so highly despite those rates, and how expenditures are paid for now.

Nobody knows, which means today's economics is no more useful to us than the medieval village wizard's explanation of future events by examining bird feathers.

[Michael Hardner]

Seriously, this idea of the economist as medieval wizard is striking me as apt.

Are we better than those who blamed early frost on the trolls under the bridge ?

[bloodyminded]

Seriously, this idea of the economist as medieval wizard is striking me as apt.

Are we better than those who blamed early frost on the trolls under the bridge ?

It's not clear that we are, no.

Interestingly--and I don't know if this suggests some sort of indoctrination, or something akin to superstition--I'm sometimes informed (here, on MLW) that there are economic certainties that are mathematically infallible; and yet (and this isn't even debatable) various economists disagree with one another absolutely, utterly, on every and any point.

That's an odd type of math.

[RNG]

It's not clear that we are, no.

Interestingly--and I don't know if this suggests some sort of indoctrination, or something akin to superstition--I'm sometimes informed (here, on MLW) that there are economic certainties that are mathematically infallible; and yet (and this isn't even debatable) various economists disagree with one another absolutely, utterly, on every and any point.

That's an odd type of math.

Quote me an economist who says his theories are math based. They do use statistics, which always suck anyway, but not as proofs.

[Zachary Young]

Well there is econometrics and indeed a lot of modern economics uses mathematical models and empirical evidence to attempt to prove their point, but I reject these schools of thought in favour of the Praxeologic thought of Mises. Economics is actually a subset of praxeology, the science of human action, which begins with a simple axiom (man acts purposefully) and uses deductive logic to go from there. Personally I think an emphasis on empiricism will lead an economist astray into making Krugman like errors over policy issues such as the minimum wage.

Yes, economists differ, but that doesn't mean all economists are wrong, it means some economists are wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Well there is econometrics and indeed a lot of modern economics uses mathematical models and empirical evidence to attempt to prove their point, but I reject these schools of thought in favour of the Praxeologic thought of Mises. Economics is actually a subset of praxeology, the science of human action, which begins with a simple axiom (man acts purposefully) and uses deductive logic to go from there.

But along the way, values are added into the equation with the result being blanket statements about government being evil. I know this from discussions with several economic libertarians on this board and elsewhere.

[Oleg Bach]

All it takes for rot to set in is for one clever weasil to squeeze into the mix..I am sure that the idea of National Socialism might have been good originally - but like all movements they get high jacked - happened to a movement lead by Jesus Christ - and look how they perverted that great movement.