Foggy Bottom Line

Politics, Economics, and Other Silly Things

Posts Tagged Wingnut Talking Points

Little Tent Conservatives

Apr 29

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Government, US Politics, US Senate, Wingnuts, Wingnuttia

On the way back from a business meeting yesterday, I had the dubious luck of hearing the local conservative radio talk show host rant about Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party.  Besides repeating the wingnut talking point that Specter switched parties because he knew  former Congressman Pat Toomey would beat him in a Republican Primary, he also went on for about ten minutes about all the other RINOs he thinks should switch–guys like Chuck Hagel.  He is not alone.

As Professor Sabato pointed out, conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot.  Of course, some part of Senator Specter’s calculation included his own political self-interest and his slim chances of winning a primary against Toomey.  But conservatives who care about the direction of public policy in the US should quietly applaud Specter’s move. 

Toomey cannot win a general election in Pennsylvania.  The state is trending liberal, and Toomey is a Club for Growth conservative with all the standard right-wing/corporatist/social conservative positions on taxation, collective action, abortion, bankruptcy, crime, gay marriage, and other issues.  This means that without a Specter switch, Pennsylvania would probably elect a more liberal senator next year.  As it happens, Specter will probably win a Democratic primary and defeat Toomey in the general election, keeping the state’s Senate members to the  right of the median Senator.

Conservatives like Doc Thomspon and Limbaugh apparently think that shrinking the party will make it stronger.  But making it more ideologically homogenous will not help the GOP’s election chances, except in places with strong conservative majorities.  Crazy rants and strident ideology do not attract new supporters.  So keep preaching to the choir, Doc, and the GOP will keep losing.

Tags: , , ,

No Comments

Queen v. Queen: Why Conservatism is Slipping

Apr 27

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in American Apologists, Cognitive Dissonance, Culture Wars, Family, Free Market, Gay Marriage, Globalization, Marriage, Religious Conservatives, Wingnuts, Wingnuttia

The anti-gay marriage crowd went bonkers once again last week when Perez Hilton, an openly gay B-list celebrity and social commentator asked a Miss America contestant whether or not other states should follow Vermont by leagalizing same-sex marriaige.  The contestant, Carrie Prejean, answered,

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”

Mr. Hilton voted against her, she came in second to Miss North Carolina, and the right went ballistic once more about the homosexual agenda, political correctness, “gay totalitarians,” and attacks on traditional values, whatever those are.

It should surprise no one that this answer, which favored a reactionary religious stance without regard to the nuances of the issue or any discusson of the idea that this debate really does have two sides, cost this woman competition points.  The purpose of questions like this in beauty pageants is to uphold the pretense that the woman’s brain is at least as important as her appearance in skimpy outfits, the size of her boobs, or the silkiness of her hair.  The fact that Miss Prejean could offer no informed opinion on why she thought states should not legalize homosexual marriage beyond her own family tradition is what cost her the crown, not the actual opinion she expressed.

Of course, conservatives want to generate outrage over this, since they have no real answer to the discrimiation argument in support of gay marriage.  So they blame phantom agendas and totalitarians for Miss Prejean’s loss, and scream bloody murder about this newest example of how Hollywood liberals and gays are destroying the American way of life.  This probablygives them some satisfaction, but if they want to know why their popularity continues to slip they should look in the mirror at the angry people they have become.

Most of what you see on the blogs linked above–not only on this subject–is anger, rage, and reactive foot stomping over percieved criticism of or insults to America or Christianity.  They offer very little policy discussion except assertions that traditional ways are better because they are so…traditional.  Very little discussion of how to adapt conservative principles to modern society can be found here.  Instead, they want to stop time and preserve traditional gender roles, traditional market rules, and traditional goverment power without defending any of these policies on social utility grounds.  “We’ve always done it this way” is all they have.

This is a losing strategy because no one listens to the angry guy.  People dismiss angry ranting, however righteous its basis, because it offers no solutions.  Americans instinctively understand that the most outraged guy in the room usually has the least justification for his rage. 

The gay marriage debate is the perfect example: homosexuals face real discrimination with regard to inheritance, power of attorney, the right to contract, and protection of partnership assets–the State treats them differently than it treats straight people.  This is a simple fact that cannot be dismissed with “but gay men have the same right to marry women as straight men do.”  But instead of seeking or proposing sensible ways of ending this discrimination, such as separating the religious consecration of sexual unions from state sanction, conservatives rant about the meaning of “marriage” and loudly make the ridiculous claim that the “marriage” of two gay men somehow affects the rights or privilege of heterosexuals to marry.  For most people, this only sets them up for ridicule.

A lot of Americans, from the faithful to environmentalists to anti-globalists would like to see a managed social progress that protects those who want to hold on to traditional ways of life while allowing others to move forward and establish new traditions.  Wingnuts don’t help their cause with strident rage over non-insults.  “You kids get off my lawn” isn’t working.

Tags: , , , , ,

1 Comment

If You Think…

Apr 12

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Cognitive Dissonance, Globalization, IR Theory, Neoconservative, US Hegemony, Whack Jobs

…that the United States is no longer the global hegemon, you might be a whack job.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Whack Jobs

Apr 10

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Foggy Bottom Line, Whack Jobs, Wingnuts, Wingnuttia

Jason Corley, the publisher of one of the sites blogrolled as a “Whack Job” site, writes to ask if I really think he fits that description.  The answer is yes.

This is, of course, quite subjective.  In my view, Mr. Corley believes some pretty wacky things.  He thinks, for instance, that because President Obama acknowledged the imperfection of the United States, and did not visit the Omaha Beach cemetery, he must hate America.  He thinks that criticism of President Obama by liberals means they are “leaving the Obama train.”  He thinks that the editor of Newsweek “adores” Islam, and considers a story about the comparative relevance of Christianity and Christian thought an attack on the faith. 

He is not alone.  A lot of others believe similar crazy things.  So in honor of Mr. Corley, I will begin a series of posts (If You Believe…..you may be a Whack Job)* pointing out “whackjobbiness” wherever I find it.  I don’t plan to ignore liberal looniness in favor of that on the Right, but I have an idea how this will shake out.  We’ll see.

*Thanks, and the appropriate apologies, to Jeff Foxworthy.

Tags: ,

2 Comments

Wingnuts, the Constitution, and DC Voting Rights

Apr 6

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in ConLaw, Government, Wingnuts, Wingnuttia

As a general matter, I do not support the legislation currently before Congress that would grant the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.  I oppose it not because I think DC residents should have no representation, or because I think such a law violates the Constitution.  I oppose it because it would also create another House seat in Utah, a state already undemocratically overrepresented by its two Senators.  This reminds me all too much of the sort of compromises struck before the Civil War that created new States two at a time–one free and one slave.  House representation for the District is either right or it isn’t, and should be passed on the merits, without a compromise intended to match a presumably liberal seat with a presumably conservative one. 

But Ed Whelan’s little screed in yesterday’s Washington Post (h/t DougJ at Balloon Juice) forces me to reevaluate.  If, after all, a “constitutional scholar” like Ed Whelan thinks the law is unconstitutional, there is probably a strong argument that it is not.

As of course, there is: the Constitutional provision giving Congress “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District, as well as other places purchased at the consent of state legislatures.  Whelan argues that the Constitutional qualification for membership in the House, which requires members inhabit the state in which chosen at the time of election, precludes House membership for DC residents, since the District is not a State.  This question has no clear answer, as even Kenneth Starr would agree.

But Whelan’s goal here seems to be less an argument against the constitutionality of this legislation than to take a shot at Eric Holder, a DC voting rights supporter who sought an opinion from the Solicitor General on whether he could defend the law in court, if it passed.  Because the Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion saying that giving DC a House member without making the District a State or passing a constitutional amendment would not pass constitutional muster, Whelan calls this politicization of the Department of Justice.

Included in this screed is an attack on Holder’s role in the Marc Rich pardon–as if his role in that affair generally disqualifies him from serving as Attorney General.  This is a classic wingnut attack in two ways: it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and it fails to apply the same standard to conservatives–like Scooter Libby, who represented Rich for five years, and is arguably respondible for the pardon, or at least more so than Holder.

Whelan gets himself into high breathless dudgeon over the notion that the Attorney General would override the Office of Legal Counsel because it questioned the constitutionality of his preferred policy.  But Holder did no such thing: believing that the law would pass, and then be challenged, he sought an opinion from the Solicitor General about the merits of arguments on the other side.  He would, of course, have to have this information to give his boss good advice about a veto–if he felt the courts would strike it down anyway, he would have to advise President Obama to negotiate a different law or veto this one and send Congress back to work on the issue. 

Holder did not change the OLC’s opinion.  He didn’t even seek another opinion on constitutionality.  He only wanted to know the prospects of defending the law in court–quite a reasonable question.

Whelan is something of a right-wing whiner and crybaby.  He also holds the interesting view that courts attack marriage by…expanding it to new groups.  So we shouldn’t be surprised when he just tosses crap against the wall to see what sticks.  But the pot, who worked in the OLC when it issued torture memos and justified an enormous and unconstitutional hijacking of power by the President he liked, should resist the urge to call the kettle black by accusing Holder of politicizing Justice just because he is doing his job.

Tags: ,

2 Comments

Representative Bill Posey Needs a Clue

Mar 24

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Economy, Free Market, Government, Wingnuttia

Taking calls on Washington Journal this morning, Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL15) attempted to argue that too much regulation caused the current economic crisis.  He cited the Community Reinvestment Act as an example, and agreed with a caller’s claim that the Act forced lenders to make $200,ooo loans to people making $30,000 a year.*

This Business Week article points out the silliness of this notion:

“…most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: ‘In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.’”

So besides the nonsense of blaming a 1977 law for a 2008 crisis, it was in fact government failure to supervise subprime lending that contributed to the problem, not an Act intended to force banks to lend back to members of the community the deposits they took in from the customers who lived there.

Republicans know they can get attention by saying stupid things–this is the foundation of Rush Limbaugh’s success.  But if they want to win back the confidence of Americans, they need to find talking points with some basis in reality.  Blaming this crisis on goverment regulation and poor people who could not repay loans won’t help solve the problem because this didn’t cause it: unregulated investment bankers who packaged these loans into new forms of gambling instruments that could not be accurately valued did.

*Video avaliable here.  Mr. Posey is first up.

Tags: , ,

1 Comment