SMALL BUSINESS AND POLITICS WORKING TOGETHER
9 years ago
The future is science. The past is superstition. The so-called Religious Right wants to take us all back in time to the wonderful world of the 13th century. They'll do it with us kicking and screaming if they can. We saw how the Republican Base treated science under Bush. It was discarded, discredited, and politicized to fit an agenda that favored development and big business and the destruction of our environment. It was also an agenda that put medical research on a back burner.
Obama has turned back the attack on science and on our future. CNN reminds us that
But as Huffington Post reports,
Scientists are, of course, happy. The Religious Right? Not so much. They call the repeal "a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death."
Ann CNN reports that
That's an amusing comment coming from the most ideologically driven group in this country. In fact, we can never be entirely free of ideology, but I think Obama is coming as close as possible in his action to freeing scientific research from the constraints of ideology.
And the religious fundamentalists who oppose stem cell research are a small minority in this country. Millions more will benefit from the changes and will no doubt be happy with the shift in direction.
Obama is right in saying that promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient _ especially when it's inconvenient."
Of course, these changes are just the most recent in Obama's offensive to roll back Bush's anti-environmental and anti-science agenda. As CNN reminds us,
The Right makes that claim that Obama is uniting his foes to oppose him. Seriously, it is difficult to imagine them mustering more numbers than they have now - and right now, they are nothing but a very vocal minority. They have lost power, they have lost credibility with the American voter, and they are well on their way to changing the GOP's status to that of a far right fringe group, a regional party of uneducated, fundamentalist Christian white males. They are putting themselves on the wrong side of history, and that is never a good idea.
I do not think it is too much to say that for 8 years that torch of the Enlightenment had been reduced to a flickering candle. Obama has fed that flame, and it is a torch once more, bright enough to guide us into an uncertain future, the darkness of superstition, the threat of the 13th century, all around us.
Obama has turned back the attack on science and on our future. CNN reminds us that
Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.
But as Huffington Post reports,
From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda _ and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Scientists are, of course, happy. The Religious Right? Not so much. They call the repeal "a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death."
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
Ann CNN reports that
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told The Washington Post he thought Obama's policy reversal on stem-cell research was an "ideological sideshow."
That's an amusing comment coming from the most ideologically driven group in this country. In fact, we can never be entirely free of ideology, but I think Obama is coming as close as possible in his action to freeing scientific research from the constraints of ideology.
And the religious fundamentalists who oppose stem cell research are a small minority in this country. Millions more will benefit from the changes and will no doubt be happy with the shift in direction.
Obama is right in saying that promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient _ especially when it's inconvenient."
Of course, these changes are just the most recent in Obama's offensive to roll back Bush's anti-environmental and anti-science agenda. As CNN reminds us,
Within a week of taking office, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review a California application to regulate greenhouse gases and told his Department of Transportation to begin implementing fuel efficiency standards passed last year but not implemented by the Bush administration.
The Right makes that claim that Obama is uniting his foes to oppose him. Seriously, it is difficult to imagine them mustering more numbers than they have now - and right now, they are nothing but a very vocal minority. They have lost power, they have lost credibility with the American voter, and they are well on their way to changing the GOP's status to that of a far right fringe group, a regional party of uneducated, fundamentalist Christian white males. They are putting themselves on the wrong side of history, and that is never a good idea.
I do not think it is too much to say that for 8 years that torch of the Enlightenment had been reduced to a flickering candle. Obama has fed that flame, and it is a torch once more, bright enough to guide us into an uncertain future, the darkness of superstition, the threat of the 13th century, all around us.
Republicans are desperate to prove FDR's legislation, known as the New Deal, did not work. They are desperate because if it worked, it will work again - for Obama. And they do not want Obama to succeed. So, to discredit his economic plan, they seek to prove the New Deal failed to lift the country out of the Great Depression. It won't work.
Why?
Because the New Deal worked.
From DemocraticUnderground.com:
And the New Deal was so much more than an economic policy. It was public policy. It was a revolution in thinking. And it changed America. No one questions this latter statement and I think this change is really what is at the heart of conservative hostility. Entrenched interests do not like change. And I think this is what is at the heart of conservative hostility to President Obama. He threatens the status quo. America's white masters were xenophobic, preservationist, and jealous of their position.
As Morton Keller argues ("The New Deal: A New Look," Polity 31 (1999), 657-663) the New Deal "emerged from the Great Depression and felt the need to change a dysfunctional economic order, not from a desire to preserve an older American from new social, political, and economic threats" and that "from the hindsihgt of more than half a century, we can see what emerged from the New Deal...was not renewed xenophobia and standpattism...Rather, the basic New Deal themse of a broad, inclusive, democratic cultural nationalism, and a readiness to use federal programs and deficit financing when necessary to secure prosperity and meet large domestic or international needs."
The New Deal brought positive change. It promoted the end of racism and xenophobia, "eroded anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and even, gradually, the segregation of blacks in American life." The Great Society legislation sponsored by President Lyndon B. Johnson was a continuation of the process, as Keller calls it, "an extension rather than a fresh and different political movement."
It is impossible to call the New Deal a failure unless you are part of the entrenched, xenophobic interests now represented by the Republican Party. Just as it did 60 years or more ago, the small town native-American hostility to the immigrant-filled big cities came to the fore - stoked by xenophobes like McCain and Palin and their talk of a "real" America - which is the rural, backwoods, small-town as opposed to the alien and evil big city. There were even good and bad parts of various states, according to the Republican Party, or "real" and "unreal" parts of America. This attitude is the antithesis of the New Deal.
We can argue the merits of the New Deal backwards and forwards, but we must first understand the issues. And the issue here is that the Republicans of today represent entrenched, largely white interests and the old status quo. Republican attitudes today are a reaction against the New Deal, reaction against the Great Society, and a reaction against Obama as another reformer in the mold of FDR and Johnson.
But Keller points out that the New Deal has not been a "one-party inheritance." We can look at Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System, which would have been unthinkable without the New Deal. Does anybody oppose our interstate system? Anyone? Anyone? The Space Program is another child of the New Deal - even the arms buildup of Reagan, so adored by Republicans today. You can claim he defeated the Red Menace but he defeated the Red Menace only because of a paradigm shift put into place by a progressive Democratic leadership. Reagan, too, is unthinkable in pre-New Deal terms.
Keller points out that "American politics and government in the second half of the twentieth century has been dominated not only by a rejected of the New Deal legacy, but rather by a continuing adaption, in its spirit, to the demands of a changing American society."
Of course, we have seen how Republicans even now hearken back to the halcyon days of pre-Depression America, to a yearning for small town values (and vice) over the alien landscape of the immigrant-filled big cities, to the old xenophobia which bread isolationism, and it is no surprise that it appeals mostly to white voters who feel threatened and who sense a loss of control. Opposition to the New Deal is reactionary. It always has been. The alternatives in the 30's were totalitarianism - either left or right. And of course, it is to the totalitarian model that conservatives seem to lean even today. They embraced Bush and his imperial presidency, for example. They reject Obama and accuse him of being the true totalitarian but we all know that the real reason for this is not a rejection of totalitarianism but the fact that Obama is not THEIR totalitarian. This is their chance, they seem to think, to turn back the clock and reclaim America for the white voter, for entrenched interests, and to restore some mythical golden age that never was - the myth of a Christian America with "real" values.
But that was an age when race and religion were prime determinants in whether a person deserved to be part of the community. We see this today in the Republican Party and the appeal to "small town" or "real American" values. Reject alienism, reject what is foreign and that which threatens to overturn the status quo. Is it any surprise that blacks are predominantly Democrats and that Hispanic/Latino voters abandoned the Republican cause en masse in 2008?
The New Deal saved us from this conservative pipe dream - a paradise for them but hell for anyone who fits into the category of the "Other". It was, as Keller says, not an episode but a defining moment like the Revolution "or the establishment of the new nation". It is a moment we should embrace and protect, not reject. And short-sighted conservative opponents today do not realize how much their own policies and have depended upon New Deal legislation and the paradigm shift that went with it. 1920 is gone folks. Good and gone. And good riddance. We have moved on. The world has moved on. We can't go back in time. We can't undo the New Deal - it has become part of American life. And it is so much more than economic policy. So much more.
For Further Reading: Mitch McConnell Is Wrong – The New Deal DID Work, and it Still Does
Why?
Because the New Deal worked.
From DemocraticUnderground.com:
When Franklyn Roosevelt began his presidency in 1933, our nation was in the midst of the greatest depression in our history. Our annual gross domestic product had been nearly cut in half since the Stock Market Crash of three and a half years previously, and unemployment stood at 25%. Within four years of taking office, GDP rose to about 90% of where it had been prior to the Stock Market Crash. In FDR's first term in office our country experienced a 5.3% increase in jobs, the greatest percent increase in jobs of the past 20 presidential terms, from 1929 to 2009. As a result, the unemployment rate was approximately cut by more than 40% by the end of his first term. By 1941, prior to the onset of World War II, the unemployment rate had declined to below 10%.
And the New Deal was so much more than an economic policy. It was public policy. It was a revolution in thinking. And it changed America. No one questions this latter statement and I think this change is really what is at the heart of conservative hostility. Entrenched interests do not like change. And I think this is what is at the heart of conservative hostility to President Obama. He threatens the status quo. America's white masters were xenophobic, preservationist, and jealous of their position.
As Morton Keller argues ("The New Deal: A New Look," Polity 31 (1999), 657-663) the New Deal "emerged from the Great Depression and felt the need to change a dysfunctional economic order, not from a desire to preserve an older American from new social, political, and economic threats" and that "from the hindsihgt of more than half a century, we can see what emerged from the New Deal...was not renewed xenophobia and standpattism...Rather, the basic New Deal themse of a broad, inclusive, democratic cultural nationalism, and a readiness to use federal programs and deficit financing when necessary to secure prosperity and meet large domestic or international needs."
The New Deal brought positive change. It promoted the end of racism and xenophobia, "eroded anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and even, gradually, the segregation of blacks in American life." The Great Society legislation sponsored by President Lyndon B. Johnson was a continuation of the process, as Keller calls it, "an extension rather than a fresh and different political movement."
It is impossible to call the New Deal a failure unless you are part of the entrenched, xenophobic interests now represented by the Republican Party. Just as it did 60 years or more ago, the small town native-American hostility to the immigrant-filled big cities came to the fore - stoked by xenophobes like McCain and Palin and their talk of a "real" America - which is the rural, backwoods, small-town as opposed to the alien and evil big city. There were even good and bad parts of various states, according to the Republican Party, or "real" and "unreal" parts of America. This attitude is the antithesis of the New Deal.
We can argue the merits of the New Deal backwards and forwards, but we must first understand the issues. And the issue here is that the Republicans of today represent entrenched, largely white interests and the old status quo. Republican attitudes today are a reaction against the New Deal, reaction against the Great Society, and a reaction against Obama as another reformer in the mold of FDR and Johnson.
But Keller points out that the New Deal has not been a "one-party inheritance." We can look at Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System, which would have been unthinkable without the New Deal. Does anybody oppose our interstate system? Anyone? Anyone? The Space Program is another child of the New Deal - even the arms buildup of Reagan, so adored by Republicans today. You can claim he defeated the Red Menace but he defeated the Red Menace only because of a paradigm shift put into place by a progressive Democratic leadership. Reagan, too, is unthinkable in pre-New Deal terms.
Keller points out that "American politics and government in the second half of the twentieth century has been dominated not only by a rejected of the New Deal legacy, but rather by a continuing adaption, in its spirit, to the demands of a changing American society."
Of course, we have seen how Republicans even now hearken back to the halcyon days of pre-Depression America, to a yearning for small town values (and vice) over the alien landscape of the immigrant-filled big cities, to the old xenophobia which bread isolationism, and it is no surprise that it appeals mostly to white voters who feel threatened and who sense a loss of control. Opposition to the New Deal is reactionary. It always has been. The alternatives in the 30's were totalitarianism - either left or right. And of course, it is to the totalitarian model that conservatives seem to lean even today. They embraced Bush and his imperial presidency, for example. They reject Obama and accuse him of being the true totalitarian but we all know that the real reason for this is not a rejection of totalitarianism but the fact that Obama is not THEIR totalitarian. This is their chance, they seem to think, to turn back the clock and reclaim America for the white voter, for entrenched interests, and to restore some mythical golden age that never was - the myth of a Christian America with "real" values.
But that was an age when race and religion were prime determinants in whether a person deserved to be part of the community. We see this today in the Republican Party and the appeal to "small town" or "real American" values. Reject alienism, reject what is foreign and that which threatens to overturn the status quo. Is it any surprise that blacks are predominantly Democrats and that Hispanic/Latino voters abandoned the Republican cause en masse in 2008?
The New Deal saved us from this conservative pipe dream - a paradise for them but hell for anyone who fits into the category of the "Other". It was, as Keller says, not an episode but a defining moment like the Revolution "or the establishment of the new nation". It is a moment we should embrace and protect, not reject. And short-sighted conservative opponents today do not realize how much their own policies and have depended upon New Deal legislation and the paradigm shift that went with it. 1920 is gone folks. Good and gone. And good riddance. We have moved on. The world has moved on. We can't go back in time. We can't undo the New Deal - it has become part of American life. And it is so much more than economic policy. So much more.
For Further Reading: Mitch McConnell Is Wrong – The New Deal DID Work, and it Still Does
President Obama today appointed a new head for FEMA and he's certainly to be an improvement over anything we had under Bush. Craig Fugate, director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, is the next administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"From his experience as a first responder to his strong leadership as Florida's emergency manager, Craig has what it takes to help us improve our preparedness, response and recovery efforts, and I can think of no one better to lead FEMA," Obama said in a statement.He should be, to judge from his record.
Rush Limbaugh seems to have assumed control of the Republican Party as of Michael Steele's surrender. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee had this weekend called Limbaugh an “entertainer” whose comments are “ugly.” "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."Of course, like every other conservative who has criticized Limbaugh, he quickly back-peddled when called to task by the GOP's pope. It took all of 3 minutes. it took Steele about 3 minutes to backpedal; he contacted the radio host to say he was sorry that he had told the truth (that Rush is an entertainer) and that he has enormous respect for Limbaugh.
"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele told CNN. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."
It turns out that what he actually meant was that a lot of people want to make Limbaugh the “bogeyman” when he’s not. Now the de-testicled Steele says that he has spoken with Pope Rush and “we are all good.”Nice to know where the buck stops in the GOP hierarchy! We would hate to mistake the party's chairman as somebody who actually has any authority.
It is difficult to believe all this has taken place, that an entertainer, a radio show host, has taken control of one of our two major political parties. Can you imagine Johnny Carson running things? The man isn't even reputable. He makes John Stewart and Stephen Colbert look like reputable journalist. If you wrote this in a novel, nobody would believe it.
Of course this can only be good news for Obama and the Democratic Party. This is, after all, what Obama wanted. He is the one who appointed Rush, if you will remember. Rush will keep the party so extreme that they will rapidly lose any credibility still remaining to them. The last thing the Democrats need is a reputable figure running things over there.
EDIT (3.4.09): The Democratic Congressional Committee (DCC) has a nifty little DIY "Republican Apology Machine" which allows you to generate a letter of apology to Rush Limbaugh. You can find it here.
They offer the following snippets which I didn't have time to add last night:
Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness:
Michael SteeleRNC Chairman Michael Steele:
Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."
I'm Sorry, Rush
"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh [...] I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. [...] There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."
And...
Congressman Phil GingreyCongressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA):
"I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."
I'm Sorry, Rush
I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, [...] that I regret those stupid comments.
And...
Gov. Mark SanfordGovernor Mark Sanford (R-SC):
"Anybody who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble..."
I'm Sorry, Rush
Sanford’s Communications Director, said that "the governor was not referring to anyone" in particular.
And to this we can soon add Congressman Eric Cantor. You can be sure of it.
Politico also has a piece on Limbaugh and White House influence on his role as leader of the Republican Party: Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh Plan
Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
I am going to push an article I wrote a couple weeks back and which was published at Associated Content.
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
US diplomacy with Iran during the Bush years embraced decades of propaganda and misunderstanding. Improved relations require a new paradigm marked not by ideology but by pragmatism and a willingness to see the world as it is - not how we wish it to be.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1454813/a_selffulfilling_prophecy_conservative.html
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
US diplomacy with Iran during the Bush years embraced decades of propaganda and misunderstanding. Improved relations require a new paradigm marked not by ideology but by pragmatism and a willingness to see the world as it is - not how we wish it to be.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1454813/a_selffulfilling_prophecy_conservative.html
In a refreshing change of pace, President Obama took the offensive yesterday against critics of his budget plan. Rather than leaving the initiative to his opponents and critics, he came right out and accused them of being allies of lobbyists and special interests more interested in preserving corporate tax breaks (part of the Republican platform, IMHO) than reviving the economy. "I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak." Obama said. "My message to them is this: So am I."
Of course, the lobbyists are acting surprised and shocked. They're innocent victims of course. The bastards have controlled Washington for decades. Bills get passed that favor them, not the environment, them, not the individual. We all suffer so that a few can enrich themselves. I think Obama finally gets it, that populist rage is real and lasting. The lobbyists don't. But they soon will. And I suspect they will see Obama's popularity rise as a result.
"I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage," Obama said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies. ... I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks."
He wisely named the least popular lobbying groups, and that is sure to rally the troops. It is difficult (unless you are a Republican and therefore too ideologically blinkered to comprehend basic facts) to justify the lobbying efforts of these big corporations. The Right will try of course, because they are owned by these groups as well as by the Fundamentalist Christians, but I don't think they'll have enough support to hurt Obama. The GOP already refuses to work with him. He knows this now. How can they do any worse than they already have by withdrawing from government and taking their toys home?
I think Obama understands that he has a mandate from the people, and that mandate has actually grown since the election, despite a steadily worsening economy. Yet he understands the opposition he faces: "I realize that passing this budget won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."
And while he will have the American people with him, he will find the Media firmly aligned with the status quo. As Media Matters for America repeatedly points out, there is no liberal media elite, and the American people will have to work hard to get unfiltered, unbiased news.
In other news, CNN reports that "Iraqi leaders are applauding President Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from the country by August 2010."
raq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's office released a statement Saturday saying he received a call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informing him of Obama's announcement of the withdrawal.
"Mr. al-Hashimi welcomed the American administration's commitment to withdrawing its troops from Iraq according to the agreed-on schedule and stressed that every possible effort should be exerted to increase the readiness of Iraqi security forces and improve their performance," the statement said.
