In the meantime, my opinions are shaped by the likes of Paul Krugman. I usually really enjoy his writing. Today's opinion piece is no exception. In Kansas on My Mind, he agrees with Thomas Frank about how the Republicans are once again screwing the working class by tricking them into thinking that they, the Republican party, have got their back- this time on Social Security.
The message of Mr. Frank's book is that the right has been able to win elections, despite the fact that its economic policies hurt workers, by portraying itself as the defender of mainstream values against a malevolent cultural elite. The right "mobilizes voters with explosive social issues, summoning public outrage ... which it then marries to pro-business economic policies. Cultural anger is marshaled to achieve economic ends."
In Mr. Frank's view, this is a confidence trick: politicians like Mr. Santorum trumpet their defense of traditional values, but their true loyalty is to elitist economic policies. "Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. ... Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization." But it keeps working.
And this week we saw Mr. Frank's thesis acted out so crudely that it was as if someone had deliberately staged it. The right wants to dismantle Social Security, a successful program that is a pillar of stability for working Americans. AARP stands in the way. So without a moment's hesitation, the usual suspects declared that this organization of staid seniors is actually an anti-soldier, pro-gay-marriage leftist front.
It's tempting to dismiss this as an exceptional case in which right-wingers, unable to come up with a real cultural grievance to exploit, fabricated one out of thin air. But such fabrications are the rule, not the exception.
For example, for much of December viewers of Fox News were treated to a series of ominous warnings about "Christmas under siege" - the plot by secular humanists to take Christ out of America's favorite holiday. The evidence for such a plot consisted largely of occasions when someone in an official capacity said, "Happy holidays," instead of, "Merry Christmas."
So it doesn't matter that Social Security is a pro-family program that was created by and for America's greatest generation - and that it is especially crucial in poor but conservative states like Alabama and Arkansas, where it's the only thing keeping a majority of seniors above the poverty line. Right-wingers will still find ways to claim that anyone who opposes privatization supports terrorists and hates family values.
Their first attack may have missed the mark, but it's the shape of smears to come.
It seems to me that most liberal writers I've read base their writing in fact and conservative writers don't. Or am I just reading the wrong conservative writers? William Safire is undreadable and now he is gone from the Times Op/Ed page. David Brooks is a moron. But do conservatives read Krugman and dismiss him immediately in the way that I dismiss Brooks?
When I read Krugman, am I just as bad as the people who only read, watch, or listen to people who believe in the same things that they do- whether it is the NPR listeners or Fox News watchers. I want to surround myself with a wide range of thought, but to do that I'd have to really spend more time reading. Is Krugman really right here? Are his facts correct or am I just so ready to believe whatever he has to say that I lap it up?
In particular, his paragraph about Christmas resonates with me but he doesn't really give any facts here other than his general impression of the situation. Is that all there was to the non-story of the vanishing Christmas? I just don't know.
Conservatives are adament that they are right with or without facts. Since I don't fully investigate these facts myself, I take Krugman at his word. But how do I know that he isn't just looking at the issues only in the way that he wants to see things rather than objectively?
.JPG)
7 comments:
Dan, as for the Xmas question, I would refer you to your own Dec. 23 entry. I think you did explore what the other side was saying, and concluded rightly that it was total bunk.
If you do find the time to read up on conservative thinking, and that helps you feel more justified in believing what someone like Krugman has to say, more power to you. I have a hard time reading right-wing writers or watching Fox News, because I usually find that it's too easy to see through what they're saying to what their evil intent is.
I think you need to give yourself more credit. Just because you don't read a lot of conservative thought, that doesn't mean you're gullible when you believe liberal writers. We all have powers of discrimination when it comes to information processing.
As I see it, there are two main types of conservatives: those who know exactly what their policies will achieve and will do anything to get them enacted, and those who are motivated by religion or ignorance or bigotry to fear change and "the other." The first group, to achieve its ends, has grown brilliant at manipulating the second into believing that their goals are one and the same.
Writing or broadcasting that's blatantly pro-Republican usually falls into one of those two categories: cynical manipulation or ignorant fanaticism.
You've raised the question of whether facts are the basis for liberal arguments and not for conservative ones, and you're wondering whether you're just reading the wrong conservative writers.
Here's the thing: it's how facts are interpreted that really matters, and when someone who has a very different worldview than you (e.g., they don't care if minorities are discriminated against, they believe doctors who perform abortions should get the death penalty, they believe that whatever minor boost the economy might receive from tax breaks for the rich is preferable to helping people in severe financial need, etc.) your assessment of the validity of their argument doesn't need to be limited to whether they're basing their arguments on facts. It's whether the conclusions they draw, and the premise they start with, are at all compatible with your own values and way of looking at the world.
That said, I think we've seen plenty of examples in recent years of the Bush administration and its hacks using factless or factually distorted arguments to support their positions. I'll go ahead and be one of those liberal writers who doesn't back that assertion up with facts, because I just woke up and I am still tired.
Track down the Valentine's issue of the New Yorker (or it may even be online) and read the article on the assault on the mainstream media for a really good precis of the true believer conservative approach to news.
Although the New Yorker is the epitome of "liberal media" it does take its role as an explainer that admits its biases seriously and thus its conclusion that conservatives approach news as "relativists" is pretty compelling.
Finally (and for the third time, Listo), you have to read "What's the Matter With Kansas" for a great theory about right wing social manipulation for political gain. Mind you, as it is a theory, the book is probably sold in red states with a sticker on front that states "the material within is just an unproven theory: intelligent design is just as valid an explanation of the rightward drift of the electorate against their own interests" as required by local boards of education.
Further to my above pontification, my fellow former Face columnist Jim Baumer has this interesting dissertation on the subject: Media Bias.
Even better for you Listo is that Jim is obsessed with small town baseball (check out the synopsis for his novel).
what is jim from maine doing when the 50 state baseball convoy makes its way to your town this summer?
Good question about Maine Jim. He lives about an hour from me and we used to write for the same publication but I've never met him. I shall invite him to join the convoy welcoming committee however as his inside knowledge of stick and ball would be invaluable.
i recommend reading Daniel Radosh's blog. it's often got many good political things in it such as this from today:
http://www.radosh.net/archive/001146.html
also, lots of Huckapoo updates.
Post a Comment