"So the core problem I see with right-wing hacks on Fox and talk radio (as distinguished from principled conservatives like the ones in my family) isn't their violent speech, though that is a problem; it's the hopelessness and fearmongering they sell, appealing to the worst parts of people for profit, even when there is no overt suggestion of violence."I couldn't agree more, and that is just one of the things that makes me sad about our state of political rhetoric.
But it isn't just that we have prominent and vocal right wing commentators who routinely refer to me (as a liberal) as a bigger threat than terrorism, or suggest that we are traitors to our country, or should be killed--but the far right has articulated a policy of government that is, by definition, destructive. Eric Lotke borrows Rick Perlstein's description of this approach as E. coli conservatism:
"Once in power, E. coli conservatives shrink government by hamstringing it. They weaken rules that protect people, slash the budgets of consumer agencies and appoint industry friends to oversight commissions. The result: Some government regulatory agencies that we trust to protect us have shrunk to insignificance or serve private industry rather than consumers."Here's the thing: I think that responsible liberalism and responsible conservatism both have negatives and positives, but both of them are workable, and both call for good and responsible governance.
The far right, however, says every governmental program is bad, and every tax is evil. How do you make that work? How do you find responsible governance in that mess?
And when you see the crumbling infrastructure (have we forgotten the Minnesota bridge) routine food safety problems, dangerous toys, the absolutely preventable mortgage crisis, etc., you don't have to be a leftist to think that there is a place for government regulation. Absolutely we should argue about those regulations and use them with caution, and absolutely some taxes are bad and some programs irresponsible.
But conservatives have created a dynamic where their goal for governance is completely destructive. I don't believe most conservatives want this anymore than they cheer for Ann Coulter (well, Dobson cheers her) or Michael Savage. Time for them to regain their party.
6 comments:
you don't have to be a leftist to think that there is a place for government regulation.
I agree, which is why I think that hard-core libertarianism would never work. The difficult question then becomes how to best set up these regulations. I have several friends that are lobbyists that frequently point out how appalled I would be if I saw the discussion and steps that went into lawmaking. Having worked in the public sector, I can say that (at least where I was) there were some regulations that were just plain stupid and there seemed to be no mechanism to evaluate and change what was not working.
I think that the US tends to develop programs too hastily and without sufficient research. They often also lack some kind of outcome measure to see if they are really working. I think some steps taken to improve this process will give us programs that are more cost-effective and beneficial.
Another problem is the distrust that many people (myself included) have for programs that appear to be done primarily to pad the pockets of some politician's friends. People like Byrd and the even worse Ted Stevens have shown us that some of these people take great pride in what tax money they can funnel into their own state.
All of those are legitimate points. But we are still dealing with a Republican party that is run by people who hate government and want it to fail. That is not responsible, and oddly enough, seems to encourage the very corruption and inattention to research and planning that you dislike.
I could respect the Republican party today if its major platform was conservative governing, with an emphasis on "good" government. But it isn't.
Speaking of violence and violent speech, the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party was shot today.
Wow, that is very scary. I hope this is not a politically motivated shooting--though I am not sure it matters for him right now.
One early bit of speculation is that the shooter was a disgruntled ex-employee.
I hope that is the case. I can live with random craziness more than the idea that politics has become deadly in this country.
Both the shooter and Gwatney have died, so it may be a while before we know what his motivation was. I hope he was motivated by a bad work experience, too.
Post a Comment