Category Archives: Partisanship

“Obama Wins the Future?” Stop Dreaming, Says Frank Rich

[In an early version of this piece, I mistakenly called Frank Rich "Frank Church." My thanks to an alert reader. How do these things happen? Surely, this isn't the age thing. Is it?]

I find this fascinating: two respected liberal commentators, having studied Tuesday’s election, arrive at wholly different conclusions about the balloting’s long range effect on American politics. It’s worth reading both and seeing with whom you agree.

The utopian blue view comes from the American Prospect’s Bob Moser, who says a new liberal majority has been born (Obama Wins The Future, 11/7/12). In the other corner, New York magazine’s Frank Rich, a liberal with impeccable credentials, sees red and says, The Tea Party Will Win in the End.)

I’ll be fascinated to know what you think!

When you’ve studied the articles, leave a critiquing comment. It’ll be interested to see which scenario readers most agree with.


Republican Chameleon, Rob Cornilles, Is a Silly Joke

I’m almost amused when I see Republican Rob Cornilles try to bilk Oregon’s First Congressional District special election voters into voting for him instead of the talented Democrat, Suzanne Bonamici.

This silly man has taken so many sides of the same issue, he looks like a weather vane in a gale off the Columbia River bar.

In Cornilles’ first TV spot he says that he will protect Medicare. But he told the Daily Astorian in January of last year that he supported cutting entitlements (of which Medicare is one) before he’d cut the defense budget.

Cornilles’ pants caught on fire in last Sunday’s KATU-TV debate, when he stated then, and again on his website, that Obama’s health care reform “cuts Medicare by $500 million.” This chestnut is being hawked across the country by the right wing “60 Plus Association,” a group from which Cornilles gets his talking points. The truth, according to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, the Obama’s reform actually saves $500 million in administrative costs in Medicare rather than cutting benefits.

Cornilles says in his TV ad that he’ll be “independent.” But–aside from being one the 60 Plus Association’s pets–on October 12 he called himself, “The original Tea Party candidate,” as you’ll see right here. On 9/8/09, he was warmly received at a Tea Party rally, which you can watch right here.

Now Rob is posing as a moderate this year because he knows it’s the only can he can win against Suzanne Bonamici, a former Federal Trade Commission lawyer and state legislative star. So Rob talks about a flat tax (bad enough for the 99%) but in truth, he supported the Bush tax cuts that add $2.5 trillion to the deficit by helping the 1%.

Ah, but he has a solution to the deficit he is thus willing to bloat! He says he’ll fix it by–get ready for it!–supporting a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. When you see Cornilles, ask him, if the amendment were in effect now, what he would cut to raise $3.4 trillion if he won’t raise taxes on the rich and won’t cut the Pentagon budget? Then ask him, in the years it’ll his “solution” to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states and passed by 2/3rds of the House and Senate, how we’ll not end up like Greece!

Cornilles peddles his Constitutional amendment snake oil with a reference to “a time when a Democratic President and Republican Congress worked together” to produce budget surpluses. Um … yes, those would be the Clinton budgets, which raised taxes and cut spending.

Obama and Bonamici are willing to do the same thing today. But the congressional Republicans who have put Cornilles up as their candidate–are blocking it!

It matters to me who wins Oregon’s First District special election for Congress–because I represented it for 18 years. I didn’t work to hold it just to see turned over to a silly joke. Or a chameleon. But, folks, jokes and chameleons can win, if you and I don’t stop them. Go to the Bonamici site now and contribute what you can afford.


McConnell on Tax Hike: Not In A Downturn, Upturn–Not Even In a No Turn

Republicans made clear on Sunday that higher taxes on the wealthy were not acceptable to them. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said:

It’s a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn …”

(Laughter!) No, no, Mitch-you-stitch! Definitely not in a downturn. And certainly not in an upturn. And never, ever even in a “no turn.”


Why ‘Facts’ Don’t Work in Politics–But What You Can Do About It

Have you ever debated someone who is, say, a swell person in almost all things–perhaps a good neighbor–but in politics inexplicably hews to the far right? Is perhaps sympathetic to the Tea Party?

And when you trump their argument with documented facts, they dig in or grow even more obnoxiously adamant?

Well, it’s because one’s beliefs trump facts. In other words, facts that don’t bolster one’s argument are dismissed because they don’t square with one’s preconceived beliefs.

Mother Jones recently ran an article on this behavioral dysfunction: “The Science Of Why We Don’t Believe Science.” Its focus is on rejection of empirical scientific evidence but the phenomenon applies to other spheres of human discourse and understanding, too. A key excerpt:

In America new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience have further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president, and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.”

So we’re doomed to ignorance and superstition? No, but the article holds that the antidote lies in how we “frame” our issues. In this skill, The Right, frankly, consistently clobbers Democrats. It’s a big reason why Democrats lost the House in 2008 and Obama looks to be in trouble in 2012. I write this in hopes the Ds, for the sake of the nation and its posterity, will wise up.

What is framing? I taught about it in my government classes at Southern Oregon University and wrote about it in a 2006 book, Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Management. I used as my example, Dubya’s phrase, “healthy forests” to characterize his administration’s effort to increase logging in the public’s national forests:

It was a masterpiece of political framing—the art of creating a central organizing idea or context for an issue through use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. ‘Healthy forests’ evokes a sense of environmental stewardship and personal safety at a time of deep fear of wildland fire.

Okay, are you ready to go out and win the day for right against wrong? Here’s your manual: George Lakoff, Howard Dean and Don Hazen’s excellent book, Don’t Think of an Elephant/ How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.

If you want to make a difference in 2012, this may be the most important tract you’ll ever read.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 302 other followers