Politics again

[Marshall]

Interesting article on "Moderates."


"Imagine how surprised the establishment wags must have been to see this Vox story by Ezra Klein reporting that political scientists have determined the vaunted moderate voter is actually an incoherent extremist who cannot possibly be appeased because her views are irrational. Seriously."


"But the belief that there exists a majority of Real Americans who just want everyone to compromise and “get the job done” is a chimera. When voters say they want everyone to get along they mean they want everyone to agree with them."

www.salon.com/2015/03/02/attack_of_radical_moderates_how_tea_party_liberals_are_both_being_swindled/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[millring]

It was almost correct. Right up until this:

“When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want,” Broockman says. “Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that’s what we tend to call moderate — versus what the Tea Party and more liberal members want.”

Somehow, with that single twist, the author is trying to still make use of "moderate" -- redefine it just as incorrectly -- in order to advance his leftist position and politics.

The Republicans have NEVER benefited from notions of "Moderate" as the erudite political position. They have, for at least 30 year now, begged and pleaded to be seen as not extreme -- the tag the Democrats have successfully put on them -- and since the national media is mostly Democrat itself, the tag "extremist" ALWAYS sticks. There are always "Arch conservatives" and "Conservative extremists" for which you will NEVER find the counter outside of FOX news and the right wing bloggosphere. NEVER.

(Meanwhile, an ACTUAL Socialist -- Bernie Sanders -- is held up as the voice of moderation and reason with that same press.

Of course the thesis is correct -- there are no "moderates". I've been saying that for years and being tagged as a cute, binary, Manichean. But there are no moderates -- at least not in the manner the Democrats have used it as a talking point to characterize Republicans as extreme. And it's been effective.

[Marshall]

I agree. From what I read in the article, I thought it was a big jump to tie in the corporation angle. At least the evidence presented left a gap in that reasoning.

But I thought it was interesting that there is no real "moderate" position. Just people who don't like the arguing and seem to be against the extremes. But in reality they don't really know what they believe in other than they think everybody should agree with them.

I resemble that remark.

[Russell Letson]

I've never seen John as cute. Imposing, yes. But much too tall for "cute," and too fond of C. S. Lewis.

(No opinion yet on the Klein piece--I have an editor breathing down my neck.)

[millring]

Mar 2, 2015 13:06:17 GMT -5 Marshall said:

But I thought it was interesting that there is no real "moderate" position. Just people who don't like the arguing and seem to be against the extremes. But in reality they don't really know what they believe in other than they think everybody should agree with them.

On that point I absolutely agreed with the article.

[aquaduct]

Salon, a large pit of lying, feculent crud-weasels.

[fauxmaha]

Lydia and I were having a conversation over the weekend that this brings to mind.

We are so invested in our tribalism and our "other-ism", that we are blinded to the commonality of our views.

In particular, I'm thinking of the enormous amount of overlap between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street people. Both sides are so committed to not only dismissing but vilifying/ridiculing the other, that they are missing the large extent to which they are saying the same thing.

I read an article where Ralph Nader essentially made this same point. I think he has a chapter about it in his most recent book.

[brucemacneill]

Mar 2, 2015 15:44:55 GMT -5 aquaduct said:

Salon, a large pit of lying, feculent crud-weasels.

Yeah but the article, to me, is more interesting because it speaks to the misunderstanding of polling in poly-sci circles due to the pollsters not recognizing the simplistic left skew of their questions that gets them the answers which seem to agree with Democrats but the person answering winds up voting Republican. It's not the "Moderate" that misunderstood the question. It's the person who wrote the question and "Knew" the correct answer at least in his/her own mind.

[millring]

Mar 2, 2015 16:33:54 GMT -5 brucemacneill said:

Mar 2, 2015 15:44:55 GMT -5 aquaduct said:

Salon, a large pit of lying, feculent crud-weasels.

Yeah but the article, to me, is more interesting because it speaks to the misunderstanding of polling in poly-sci circles due to the pollsters not recognizing the simplistic left skew of their questions that gets them the answers which seem to agree with Democrats but the person answering winds up voting Republican. It's not the "Moderate" that misunderstood the question. It's the person who wrote the question and "Knew" the correct answer at least in his/her own mind.

I think that's quite true. It's long been the case that the left doesn't recognize the water in which it swims. Since it controls the language of every debate, nearly every question they ask comes across as entrapment to a Republican. Every Republican will, like Walker, be asked a thousand times before the campaign is over whether or not he believes in evolution. No Democrat will be similarly asked. But since the askers don't even remotely understand the nuance of the issue beyond the sense of entrapment the Republican encounters with it, the askers never ultimately get an accurate answer.

[Russell Letson]

Without for a moment accepting the larger proposition about whether anyone to the left of some notional right wing is capable of thinking outside of some equally notional box--might we take a (quite neutral) survey of, say, House members who have made public statements re: evolution and devise some kind of display indicating how many of which affiliation take what position on its status as a scientific model?

[millring]

Mar 2, 2015 17:09:25 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

Without for a moment accepting the larger proposition about whether anyone to the left of some notional right wing is capable of thinking outside of some equally notional box--might we take a (quite neutral) survey of, say, House members who have made public statements re: evolution and devise some kind of display indicating how many of which affiliation take what position on its status as a scientific model?

No. That's the point. The question is presuppositional and mistakenly so.

[Russell Letson]

It's only "presuppositional" outside the context of public discourse that has made accepting science an "issue," particularly for one segment of the right. Here's a snippet from a MediaMatters blog--which, of course, can be dismissed as partisan, unless one pays attention to public discourse over, say, the last decade or two.

Despite shrill complaints about its supposed irrelevance, the topic of evolution remains firmly in the public square, thanks in part to conservative activists who continue to try to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. For instance, during Walker's term as governor, a debate unfolded in Wisconsin about whether a public school district should only teach the scientifically-valid theory of evolution, or also teach the scientifically-bankrupt theory of intelligent design.

mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/stop-whining-conservative-media-asking-scott-wa/202563

Asking about evolution (or now vaccination) is one way of figuring out what population segment a politician is cultivating, or at least trying to avoid offending.

[millring]

No, it's presuppositional that the question is asked in a way that allows no nuance -- though the nuance is the VERY thing that matters. And that Media Matters highlights the very problem. That you see the Media Matters quote as neutral goes a very long way toward showing just exactly how right Bruce is about why Republican types don't answer polls in the way the pollsters can then accurately analyze.

[Fingerplucked]

Mar 2, 2015 16:19:32 GMT -5 fauxmaha said:

In particular, I'm thinking of the enormous amount of overlap between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street people. Both sides are so committed to not only dismissing but vilifying/ridiculing the other, that they are missing the large extent to which they are saying the same thing.

I read an article where Ralph Nader essentially made this same point. I think he has a chapter about it in his most recent book.

I was making that point back when OWS was in its glory. (Before the 2012 election?) I don't remember anybody agreeing with me back then.

Just takes time, I guess. Sort of like Republicans now embracing the concept of income inequality. Or krill oil in a time release capsule.

[Doug]

I just don't see any difference.  Just two sides of totalitarian statistic.  The left/right divide is just an artificial concept created by politicians to distract people from the fact that both are the same, anti people and pro totalitarian government. 

[brucemacneill]

Mar 2, 2015 17:20:27 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

It's only "presuppositional" outside the context of public discourse that has made accepting science an "issue," particularly for one segment of the right. Here's a snippet from a MediaMatters blog--which, of course, can be dismissed as partisan, unless one pays attention to public discourse over, say, the last decade or two.

Despite shrill complaints about its supposed irrelevance, the topic of evolution remains firmly in the public square, thanks in part to conservative activists who continue to try to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. For instance, during Walker's term as governor, a debate unfolded in Wisconsin about whether a public school district should only teach the scientifically-valid theory of evolution, or also teach the scientifically-bankrupt theory of intelligent design.

mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/stop-whining-conservative-media-asking-scott-wa/202563

Asking about evolution (or now vaccination) is one way of figuring out what population segment a politician is cultivating, or at least trying to avoid offending.

Evolution is an interesting example. Assuming Darwin to have been right for a minute, why haven't any of the other animals evolved in the past 5 million years or so. We seem to be the only evolved species in that timeframe. I don't know the answer of course. Perhaps the Ancient Astronaut theory is right. In any case, if asked if I believe in evolution I don't have a yes or no answer.

[jdd2]

Gosh, I wonder where dogs & cats came from?

[RickW]

Mar 2, 2015 16:19:32 GMT -5 fauxmaha said:

We are so invested in our tribalism and our "other-ism", that we are blinded to the commonality of our views.

In particular, I'm thinking of the enormous amount of overlap between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street people. Both sides are so committed to not only dismissing but vilifying/ridiculing the other, that they are missing the large extent to which they are saying the same thing.

To further that point and get completely off track, I often wonder why Iran and Israel waste all their energy throwing rocks at each other, when both are surrounded by Sunni Muslims who detest them both. They would make natural allies.

[aquaduct]

Mar 2, 2015 19:17:48 GMT -5 jdd2 said:

Gosh, I wonder where dogs & cats came from?

Other cats and dogs. Why?

[aquaduct]

Mar 2, 2015 17:20:27 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

It's only "presuppositional" outside the context of public discourse that has made accepting science an "issue," particularly for one segment of the right. Here's a snippet from a MediaMatters blog--which, of course, can be dismissed as partisan, unless one pays attention to public discourse over, say, the last decade or two.

Despite shrill complaints about its supposed irrelevance, the topic of evolution remains firmly in the public square, thanks in part to conservative activists who continue to try to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. For instance, during Walker's term as governor, a debate unfolded in Wisconsin about whether a public school district should only teach the scientifically-valid theory of evolution, or also teach the scientifically-bankrupt theory of intelligent design.

mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/19/stop-whining-conservative-media-asking-scott-wa/202563

Asking about evolution (or now vaccination) is one way of figuring out what population segment a politician is cultivating, or at least trying to avoid offending.

I heard Rush talk about this over the weekend as the genius of Scott Walker. When asked these kind of stupid gotcha questions by the lying, feculant crap-weasels, he simply refuses to answer.

"Do you think Obama is a Christian?" "Don't know, never talked to him about it."

"What do you think about evolution?" "I'm not going to answer that."

"Do you think Obama loves America?" "You'll have to ask him."

"You were saying the opposite about immigration in 2013." "I changed my mind."

Just unflappable in the face on liberal douche baggery and focused on his message. And he's taken everything they've thrown at him and continued to win.

I'm excited about him in 2016.