Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:29:31 AM
The Gullible Center
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 8, 2012
So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon?
And yes, I mean the phenomenon, not the man. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the principal author of the last two Congressional Republican budget proposals, isn’t especially interesting. He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class.
No, what’s interesting is the cult that has grown up around Mr. Ryan — and in particular the way self-proclaimed centrists elevated him into an icon of fiscal responsibility, and even now can’t seem to let go of their fantasy.
The Ryan cult was very much on display last week, after President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a “Trojan horse” — that is, it is essentially a fraud. “Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.”
The reaction from many commentators was a howl of outrage. The president was being rude; he was being partisan; he was being a big meanie. Yet what he said about the Ryan proposal was completely accurate.
Actually, there are many problems with that proposal. But you can get the gist if you understand two numbers [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/ryan-in-two-numbers/ ]: $4.6 trillion and 14 million.
Of these, $4.6 trillion is the revenue cost over the next decade of the tax cuts embodied in the plan, as estimated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. These cuts — which are, by the way, cuts over and above those involved in making the Bush tax cuts permanent — would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, with the average member of the top 1 percent receiving a tax break of $238,000 a year.
Mr. Ryan insists that despite these tax cuts his proposal is “revenue neutral,” that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. But he has refused to specify a single loophole he would close. And if we assess the proposal without his secret (and probably nonexistent) plan to raise revenue, it turns out to involve running bigger deficits than we would run under the Obama administration’s proposals.
Meanwhile, 14 million is a minimum estimate of the number of Americans who would lose health insurance under Mr. Ryan’s proposed cuts in Medicaid; estimates by the Urban Institute actually put the number at between 14 million and 27 million.
So the proposal is exactly as President Obama described it: a proposal to deny health care (and many other essentials) to millions of Americans, while lavishing tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy — all while failing to reduce the budget deficit [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/ryan-obama-and-deficits/ ], unless you believe in Mr. Ryan’s secret revenue sauce. So why are centrists rising to Mr. Ryan’s defense?
Well, ask yourself the following: What does it mean to be a centrist, anyway?
It could mean supporting politicians who actually are relatively nonideological, who are willing, for example, to seek Democratic support for health reforms originally devised by Republicans, to support deficit-reduction plans that rely on both spending cuts and revenue increases. And by that standard, centrists should be lavishing praise on the leading politician who best fits that description — a fellow named Barack Obama.
But the “centrists” who weigh in on policy debates are playing a different game. Their self-image, and to a large extent their professional selling point, depends on posing as high-minded types standing between the partisan extremes, bringing together reasonable people from both parties — even if these reasonable people don’t actually exist. And this leaves them unable either to admit how moderate Mr. Obama is or to acknowledge the more or less universal extremism of his opponents on the right.
Enter Mr. Ryan, an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one. The “centrists” needed to pretend that there are reasonable Republicans, so they nominated him for the role, crediting him with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing. Indeed, back in 2010 Mr. Ryan, who has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan, received an award for fiscal responsibility from a committee representing several prominent centrist organizations.
So you can see the problem these commentators face. To admit that the president’s critique is right would be to admit that they were snookered by Mr. Ryan, who is the same as he ever was. More than that, it would call into question their whole centrist shtick — for the moral of my story is that Mr. Ryan isn’t the only emperor who turns out, on closer examination, to be naked.
Hence the howls of outrage, and the attacks on the president for being “partisan.” For that is what people in Washington say when they want to shout down someone who is telling the truth.
*
Related News
Budget Author, a Romney Ally, Turns Into a Campaign Focus (April 5, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/politics/ryan-architect-of-gop-budget-in-election-focus.html
Obama, in Talk, Calls House G.O.P. Budget the Work of Rightist Radicals (April 4, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/obama-attacks-house-gop-budget.html
Related in Opinion
Paul Krugman Blog: Ryan, Obama, and Deficits (April 8, 2012)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/ryan-obama-and-deficits/
Paul Krugman Blog: Ryan in Two Numbers (April 6, 2012)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/ryan-in-two-numbers/
*
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html [with comments]
===
The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’
By PHILIP KITCHER
Given the well-known Republican antipathy to evolution, President Obama’s recent description of the Republican budget as an example of “social Darwinism” may be a canny piece of political labeling. In the interests of historical accuracy, however, it should be clearly recognized that “social Darwinism” has very little to do with the ideas developed by Charles Darwin in “On the Origin of Species.” Social Darwinism emerged as a movement in the late 19th-century, and has had waves of popularity ever since, but its central ideas owe more to the thought of a luminary of that time, Herbert Spencer, whose writings are (to understate) no longer widely read.
Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” thought about natural selection on a grand scale. Conceiving selection in pre-Darwinian terms — as a ruthless process, “red in tooth and claw” — he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition. Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak, those people and those human achievements that are fittest — most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth — will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve. Late 19th-century dynastic capitalists, especially the American “robber barons,” found this vision profoundly congenial. Their contemporary successors like it for much the same reasons, just as some adolescents discover an inspiring reinforcement of their self-image in the writings of Ayn Rand .
Although social Darwinism has often been closely connected with ideas in eugenics (pampering the weak will lead to the “decline of the race”) and with theories of racial superiority (the economic and political dominance of people of North European extraction is a sign that some racial groups are intrinsically better than others), these are not central to the position.
The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses: first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop; second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all. It is not entirely implausible to think that doctrines like these stand behind a vast swath of Republican proposals, including the recent budget, with its emphasis on providing greater economic benefits to the rich, transferring the burden to the middle-classes and poor, and especially in its proposals for reducing public services. Fuzzier versions of the theses have pervaded Republican rhetoric for the past decade (and even longer).
There are very good reasons to think both theses are false. Especially in the case of the Republican dynasties of our day, the Bushes and the Romneys, success has been facilitated by all kinds of social structures, by educational opportunities and legal restrictions, that were in place prior to and independently of their personal efforts or achievements. For those born into environments in which silver spoons rarely appear — Barack Obama, for instance — the contributions of the social environment are even more apparent. Without enormous support, access to inspiring teachers and skillful doctors, the backing of self-sacrificing relatives and a broader community, and without a fair bit of luck, the vast majority of people, not only in the United States but throughout the world, would never achieve the things of which they are, in principle, capable. In short, Horatio Alger needs lots of help, and a large thrust of contemporary Republican policy is dedicated to making sure he doesn’t get it.
Second, even if rigorous competition enables the talented — or, better, the lucky — to realize their goals, it is completely unwarranted to suppose that their accomplishments will translate into any increased benefit for the overwhelming majority of those who are less fortunate. The strenuous struggle social Darwinism envisages might select for something, but the most likely traits are a tendency to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a foreseeable end, a sharp focus on narrowly individual goals and a corresponding disregard for others. We might reasonably expect that a world run on social Darwinist lines would generate a cadre of plutocrats, each resolutely concerned to establish a dynasty and to secure his favored branch of industry against future competition. In practical terms it would almost certainly yield a world in which the gap between rich and poor was even larger than it is now.
Rather than the beauty, wisdom, virtue and nobility Spencer envisioned arising from fierce competition, the likely products would be laws repealing inheritance taxes and deregulating profitable activities, and a vast population of people whose lives were even further diminished.
Yet, even if stimulating competition would achieve greater economic productivity, and even if this would, by some miraculous mechanism, yield a more egalitarian distribution of economic resources (presumably through the provision of more remunerative jobs), these welcome material benefits are not all that is needed. To quote a much-cited book, we do not “live by bread alone.” If the vast majority of citizens (or, globally, of people) are to enjoy any opportunities to develop the talents they have, they need the social structures social Darwinism perceives as pampering and counter-productive. Human well-being is profoundly affected by public goods, a concept that is entirely antithetical to social Darwinism or to contemporary Republican ideology, with their mythical citizens who can fulfill their potential without rich systems of social support. It is a callous fiction to suppose that what is needed is less investment in education, health care, public transportation and affordable public housing.
So long as social Darwinism is disentangled from the ancillary eugenic and racist ideas, so long as it is viewed in its core form of the two theses about the glories of competition, the label President Obama pinned on the Republican budget is completely deserved. Because the central ideas of social Darwinism are equally false and noxious, a commitment to truth in advertising should welcome the label. And all of us, including President Obama and the many people whose less spectacular successes have been enabled by social structures and public goods, should hope that the name leads Darwin-hating conservatives to worry about the Republican budget.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/the-taint-of-social-darwinism/ [with comments]
===
Romney's Dog Whistle in Wisconsin
by Frederick ClarksonFollow .
Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 08:16 PM PDT.
You know that old time dog-whistle you heard the other day -- you know the one -- the one that helps demagogues to name a problem in society, or people who do or say things they don't like, and assign blame? Well, that was Mitt Romney engaging in a foundational part of his campaign to appeal to the Religious Right voters he needs by denouncing "secularism."
While this has been part of the narrative of the Religious Right for decades, few of us outside of the Religious Right and those who study and write about it, have much appreciation for how important this is for the pols who engage in it, and for their audiences that are conditioned to hear it in a certain way.
I wrote an essay [ http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n1/secular_fundamentalist.html ] about this in 2008 when the dog whistling had gone bipartisan and Mitt Romney had begun his presidential campaign by whistling for the dog while also trying to claim that he supports the separation of church and state. The Democrats who were afflicted at the time, seem to have since come to their senses about the politics of secular baiting. But it has become a standard part of Romney's act, as it has with Rick Santorum [ http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/2/26/15021/5154/Front_Page/The_JFK_Speech_That_Made_Santorum_Want_to_Throw_Up ] -- and if we listen carefully, we are likely to hear much more of it as the campaign season heats up.
The demagogic pols who do this know that their intended audience is hearing something different than the rest of us. For most of us, secularism means one of two main things: A non-theistic belief system; or the idea that a "secular" government, is neutral with regard to religion, and yet an uncompromised guarantor of the right of religious and non-religious belief. But Religious Rightists hear something different [ http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n1/secular_fundamentalist.html ].
Chip Berlet, the senior analyst at Political Research Associates, explained in 1998 that for decades, the Religious Right had already promoted a conspiracy theory that Christianity is under attack by “secular humanists.”
The idea that a coordinated campaign by “secular humanists” was aimed at displacing Christianity as the moral bedrock of America actually traces back to a group of Catholic ideologues in the 1960s. It was Protestant evangelicals, especially fundamentalists, who brought this concept into the public political arena and developed a plan to mobilize grassroots activists as foot soldiers in what became known as the Culture Wars of the 1980s….
The idea of a conscious and coordinated conspiracy of secular humanists has been propounded in various ways by a variety of national conservative organizations and individuals.
The late D. James Kennedy offered a characteristic use of the term:
“God forbid that we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to engage the enemy in this culture war.”
Here is Romney's April 3rd dog whistle in Wisconsin [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP8iBhGnNF8 (at the end, as embedded in the original)]:
“I think there is in this country a war on religion. I think there is a desire to establish a religion in America known as secularism.”
“They gave it a lot of thought and they decided to say that in this country that a church — in this case, the Catholic Church — would be required to violate its principles and its conscience and be required to provide contraceptives, sterilization and morning after pills to the employees of the church."
"Those of us who are people of faith recognize this is — an attack on one religion is an attack on all religion."
Don Byrd, the blogger at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, challenges [ http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4982&Itemid=134 ] Romney's claim:
Actually, churches and houses of worship are explicitly exempt from the coverage requirement, and President Obama announced his intention that the final rule should likewise exempt religious organizations that object to the mandate on religious grounds. HHS has asked for public comment on how best to accommodate the views of religious organizations like schools and hospitals while providing women with access to effective health care. How can that be a national religion of secularism?
Of course, a rule that makes such sweeping exemptions can hardly be called an attack on religious freedom or the establishment of a "religion of secularism," whatever that is.
When Romney and Santorum claim that president Obama, or anyone else, is trying to foist a religion of secularism on America, their audience hears something like what D. James Kennedy said without any need for elaboration. It has been stated so many times in so many ways as the fundamental battle of our time. If there is a culture war, this is what it is about. When you hear about the "war on Christmas" this is what it is about.
There is no more crass, calculated or profound a pander to the Religious Right than when Mitt Romney claims that minor federal rule making constitutes an effort to establish a "religion of secularism."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/05/1080794/-Romney-s-Dog-Whistle-in-Wisconsin [with comments]
===
Romney's weekend: Family photos or political fodder?
Mitt Romney's California beach house has been in the news because of renovation plans that include a car elevator.
From The CNN Political Unit
updated 7:10 PM EDT, Mon April 9, 2012
(CNN) -- It's not the way most Americans spent Easter weekend, but then again, most Americans aren't Mitt Romney. And that's the potential problem that will be leveraged against him in the battle for the White House.
The former Massachusetts governor and likely Republican presidential nominee spent the past few days with his family at his beach house in expensive and exclusive La Jolla, California. That's the same three-bedroom home, purchased for $12 million four years ago, that has made headlines over the past couple of years after reports of plans for a major remodeling and expansion.
The home was in the media spotlight again just a few weeks ago, amid reports that the proposed renovations, which would quadruple the size of the structure, included an auto elevator for a four-car garage.
Romney's GOP presidential campaign released a photo on Friday of Mitt and wife Ann Romney decorating Easter eggs with their grandchildren. On Sunday, Romney's son Matt tweeted out a photo of the family taking part in an Easter egg hunt on the expansive lawn belonging to their next-door neighbor.
Also over the weekend, a photo of Romney walking across the beach, wearing a wetsuit and holding a boogie board, made its way onto the political blogs. A day later, in response, son Matt, who's seen in the beach picture with his father, tweeted "water temp was low 60s. I was freezing in my full-length wetsuit. Guess my dad was just happy to be out there."
Are the photos much ado about nothing? Or are they an example of a candidate who might be tone-deaf to how most of the public actually lives.
In 2004, opponents used images of then-Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts windsurfing to tag him an elitist, lumping in windsurfing with some of his other expensive pastimes, including skiing and flying himself between vacation homes.
But boogie-boarding is not an expensive hobby, and a source close to the Romney campaign says it doesn't see a problem with the photos, and that like millions of other Americans, Romney spent the holiday weekend with his family.
"We had 11 of our grandkids staying with us and three of my boys and three of their, of course, their spouses," Romney said Monday, describing his weekend in an interview on former Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's radio program. "We had the Easter egg roll over the neighbor's lawn. He has a big lawn we use. We made Easter eggs, we went swimming and surfing in the water. We are in California. It is absolutely delightful."
Romney made millions at Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded in 1984, and at Bain and Company, a management firm he eventually ran. According to a financial disclosure form released by his campaign last year, Romney has assets totaling $190 million to $250 million in value.
He made $42.7 million over the past two years and paid $6.2 million in taxes, according to tax documents released earlier this year by his campaign. Mitt and Anne Romney filed a joint 1040 reporting $21.7 million in 2010 income and $3 million in federal taxes. They also said their 2011 income was $21 million and the tax bill was $3.2 million.
Besides the beach home in La Jolla, Romney owns a property along Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. He used to own a multimillion-dollar ski home in exclusive Deer Valley, Utah.
The "rich guy" and "Wall Street" images were issues for Romney when he first ran for the GOP presidential nomination four years ago. This time around, Romney has been more casual, often shedding the suit for a less buttoned-up look.
But he was attacked earlier in this primary season by rival Republican candidates, including Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, over his wealth.
According to a CNN/ORC International poll released two weeks ago, Republicans nationwide said that Santorum cares more about average Americans than Romney by 47% to 34%.
On the campaign trail, Romney talks bluntly about his financial status, saying, "I've been very successful and I'm not going to apologize for that."
And GOP strategist Ana Navarro says the worst thing Romney can do is be insincere.
"The worst thing Romney can do is pretend to be what he's not. We all know he's a wealthy man. He's a successful man. He's made his money. He doesn't need to apologize about it and the best he can do is embrace it, accept it, and not be awkward about it," Navarro told CNN.
"It's part of a package deal and -- let's face it -- we live in America. In America, being successful and being wealthy is a good thing, not something we resent," she added.
Another GOP strategist said Romney's success should be admired.
"The fact of the matter today, though, is that the American people are hurting. They're worried about their financial future, they're worried about their kids' financial future, and they look at Mitt Romney, who is a self-made guy and very successful, very successful over a number of different enterprises, and I think he's the kind of guy that the American people can look at and say we need this kind of success as a country," said Gentry Collins, who served as political director for both the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association and who ran Romney's 2008 operations in Iowa, but who says he is neutral this cycle.
Will photos of Romney on the beach, or at the La Jolla beach house, be used by the Democratic National Committee or the Obama re-election campaign? Stay tuned.
But Democrats are already making an issue of Romney's wealth through his opposition to the so-called "Buffett Rule," a push by the president and congressional Democrats to get those making more than $1 million a year to pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income and payroll taxes than those who make less.
The bill is named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has argued that it's unfair that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The measure would require that millionaires pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.
The legislation is opposed by most Republicans, and the Obama re-election team is targeting Romney for his opposition.
"Romney supports tax policies that reward people like him, and now he's just trying to obscure just how much he would benefit," said Obama re-election campaign manager Jim Messina, in a conference call Monday. "... Our message to Mitt is simple: If you don't have anything to hide, release your taxes just like every other candidate for president."
CNN Senior Correspondent Joe Johns contributed to this report.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/politics/romney-tone-deaf/index.html [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74080820 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74082139 and preceding (and any future following)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 8, 2012
So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon?
And yes, I mean the phenomenon, not the man. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the principal author of the last two Congressional Republican budget proposals, isn’t especially interesting. He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class.
No, what’s interesting is the cult that has grown up around Mr. Ryan — and in particular the way self-proclaimed centrists elevated him into an icon of fiscal responsibility, and even now can’t seem to let go of their fantasy.
The Ryan cult was very much on display last week, after President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a “Trojan horse” — that is, it is essentially a fraud. “Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.”
The reaction from many commentators was a howl of outrage. The president was being rude; he was being partisan; he was being a big meanie. Yet what he said about the Ryan proposal was completely accurate.
Actually, there are many problems with that proposal. But you can get the gist if you understand two numbers [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/ryan-in-two-numbers/ ]: $4.6 trillion and 14 million.
Of these, $4.6 trillion is the revenue cost over the next decade of the tax cuts embodied in the plan, as estimated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. These cuts — which are, by the way, cuts over and above those involved in making the Bush tax cuts permanent — would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, with the average member of the top 1 percent receiving a tax break of $238,000 a year.
Mr. Ryan insists that despite these tax cuts his proposal is “revenue neutral,” that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. But he has refused to specify a single loophole he would close. And if we assess the proposal without his secret (and probably nonexistent) plan to raise revenue, it turns out to involve running bigger deficits than we would run under the Obama administration’s proposals.
Meanwhile, 14 million is a minimum estimate of the number of Americans who would lose health insurance under Mr. Ryan’s proposed cuts in Medicaid; estimates by the Urban Institute actually put the number at between 14 million and 27 million.
So the proposal is exactly as President Obama described it: a proposal to deny health care (and many other essentials) to millions of Americans, while lavishing tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy — all while failing to reduce the budget deficit [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/ryan-obama-and-deficits/ ], unless you believe in Mr. Ryan’s secret revenue sauce. So why are centrists rising to Mr. Ryan’s defense?
Well, ask yourself the following: What does it mean to be a centrist, anyway?
It could mean supporting politicians who actually are relatively nonideological, who are willing, for example, to seek Democratic support for health reforms originally devised by Republicans, to support deficit-reduction plans that rely on both spending cuts and revenue increases. And by that standard, centrists should be lavishing praise on the leading politician who best fits that description — a fellow named Barack Obama.
But the “centrists” who weigh in on policy debates are playing a different game. Their self-image, and to a large extent their professional selling point, depends on posing as high-minded types standing between the partisan extremes, bringing together reasonable people from both parties — even if these reasonable people don’t actually exist. And this leaves them unable either to admit how moderate Mr. Obama is or to acknowledge the more or less universal extremism of his opponents on the right.
Enter Mr. Ryan, an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one. The “centrists” needed to pretend that there are reasonable Republicans, so they nominated him for the role, crediting him with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing. Indeed, back in 2010 Mr. Ryan, who has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan, received an award for fiscal responsibility from a committee representing several prominent centrist organizations.
So you can see the problem these commentators face. To admit that the president’s critique is right would be to admit that they were snookered by Mr. Ryan, who is the same as he ever was. More than that, it would call into question their whole centrist shtick — for the moral of my story is that Mr. Ryan isn’t the only emperor who turns out, on closer examination, to be naked.
Hence the howls of outrage, and the attacks on the president for being “partisan.” For that is what people in Washington say when they want to shout down someone who is telling the truth.
*
Related News
Budget Author, a Romney Ally, Turns Into a Campaign Focus (April 5, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/politics/ryan-architect-of-gop-budget-in-election-focus.html
Obama, in Talk, Calls House G.O.P. Budget the Work of Rightist Radicals (April 4, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/obama-attacks-house-gop-budget.html
Related in Opinion
Paul Krugman Blog: Ryan, Obama, and Deficits (April 8, 2012)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/ryan-obama-and-deficits/
Paul Krugman Blog: Ryan in Two Numbers (April 6, 2012)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/ryan-in-two-numbers/
*
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html [with comments]
===
The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’
By PHILIP KITCHER
Given the well-known Republican antipathy to evolution, President Obama’s recent description of the Republican budget as an example of “social Darwinism” may be a canny piece of political labeling. In the interests of historical accuracy, however, it should be clearly recognized that “social Darwinism” has very little to do with the ideas developed by Charles Darwin in “On the Origin of Species.” Social Darwinism emerged as a movement in the late 19th-century, and has had waves of popularity ever since, but its central ideas owe more to the thought of a luminary of that time, Herbert Spencer, whose writings are (to understate) no longer widely read.
Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” thought about natural selection on a grand scale. Conceiving selection in pre-Darwinian terms — as a ruthless process, “red in tooth and claw” — he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition. Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak, those people and those human achievements that are fittest — most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth — will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve. Late 19th-century dynastic capitalists, especially the American “robber barons,” found this vision profoundly congenial. Their contemporary successors like it for much the same reasons, just as some adolescents discover an inspiring reinforcement of their self-image in the writings of Ayn Rand .
Although social Darwinism has often been closely connected with ideas in eugenics (pampering the weak will lead to the “decline of the race”) and with theories of racial superiority (the economic and political dominance of people of North European extraction is a sign that some racial groups are intrinsically better than others), these are not central to the position.
The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses: first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop; second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all. It is not entirely implausible to think that doctrines like these stand behind a vast swath of Republican proposals, including the recent budget, with its emphasis on providing greater economic benefits to the rich, transferring the burden to the middle-classes and poor, and especially in its proposals for reducing public services. Fuzzier versions of the theses have pervaded Republican rhetoric for the past decade (and even longer).
There are very good reasons to think both theses are false. Especially in the case of the Republican dynasties of our day, the Bushes and the Romneys, success has been facilitated by all kinds of social structures, by educational opportunities and legal restrictions, that were in place prior to and independently of their personal efforts or achievements. For those born into environments in which silver spoons rarely appear — Barack Obama, for instance — the contributions of the social environment are even more apparent. Without enormous support, access to inspiring teachers and skillful doctors, the backing of self-sacrificing relatives and a broader community, and without a fair bit of luck, the vast majority of people, not only in the United States but throughout the world, would never achieve the things of which they are, in principle, capable. In short, Horatio Alger needs lots of help, and a large thrust of contemporary Republican policy is dedicated to making sure he doesn’t get it.
Second, even if rigorous competition enables the talented — or, better, the lucky — to realize their goals, it is completely unwarranted to suppose that their accomplishments will translate into any increased benefit for the overwhelming majority of those who are less fortunate. The strenuous struggle social Darwinism envisages might select for something, but the most likely traits are a tendency to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a foreseeable end, a sharp focus on narrowly individual goals and a corresponding disregard for others. We might reasonably expect that a world run on social Darwinist lines would generate a cadre of plutocrats, each resolutely concerned to establish a dynasty and to secure his favored branch of industry against future competition. In practical terms it would almost certainly yield a world in which the gap between rich and poor was even larger than it is now.
Rather than the beauty, wisdom, virtue and nobility Spencer envisioned arising from fierce competition, the likely products would be laws repealing inheritance taxes and deregulating profitable activities, and a vast population of people whose lives were even further diminished.
Yet, even if stimulating competition would achieve greater economic productivity, and even if this would, by some miraculous mechanism, yield a more egalitarian distribution of economic resources (presumably through the provision of more remunerative jobs), these welcome material benefits are not all that is needed. To quote a much-cited book, we do not “live by bread alone.” If the vast majority of citizens (or, globally, of people) are to enjoy any opportunities to develop the talents they have, they need the social structures social Darwinism perceives as pampering and counter-productive. Human well-being is profoundly affected by public goods, a concept that is entirely antithetical to social Darwinism or to contemporary Republican ideology, with their mythical citizens who can fulfill their potential without rich systems of social support. It is a callous fiction to suppose that what is needed is less investment in education, health care, public transportation and affordable public housing.
So long as social Darwinism is disentangled from the ancillary eugenic and racist ideas, so long as it is viewed in its core form of the two theses about the glories of competition, the label President Obama pinned on the Republican budget is completely deserved. Because the central ideas of social Darwinism are equally false and noxious, a commitment to truth in advertising should welcome the label. And all of us, including President Obama and the many people whose less spectacular successes have been enabled by social structures and public goods, should hope that the name leads Darwin-hating conservatives to worry about the Republican budget.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/the-taint-of-social-darwinism/ [with comments]
===
Romney's Dog Whistle in Wisconsin
by Frederick ClarksonFollow .
Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 08:16 PM PDT.
You know that old time dog-whistle you heard the other day -- you know the one -- the one that helps demagogues to name a problem in society, or people who do or say things they don't like, and assign blame? Well, that was Mitt Romney engaging in a foundational part of his campaign to appeal to the Religious Right voters he needs by denouncing "secularism."
While this has been part of the narrative of the Religious Right for decades, few of us outside of the Religious Right and those who study and write about it, have much appreciation for how important this is for the pols who engage in it, and for their audiences that are conditioned to hear it in a certain way.
I wrote an essay [ http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n1/secular_fundamentalist.html ] about this in 2008 when the dog whistling had gone bipartisan and Mitt Romney had begun his presidential campaign by whistling for the dog while also trying to claim that he supports the separation of church and state. The Democrats who were afflicted at the time, seem to have since come to their senses about the politics of secular baiting. But it has become a standard part of Romney's act, as it has with Rick Santorum [ http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/2/26/15021/5154/Front_Page/The_JFK_Speech_That_Made_Santorum_Want_to_Throw_Up ] -- and if we listen carefully, we are likely to hear much more of it as the campaign season heats up.
The demagogic pols who do this know that their intended audience is hearing something different than the rest of us. For most of us, secularism means one of two main things: A non-theistic belief system; or the idea that a "secular" government, is neutral with regard to religion, and yet an uncompromised guarantor of the right of religious and non-religious belief. But Religious Rightists hear something different [ http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n1/secular_fundamentalist.html ].
Chip Berlet, the senior analyst at Political Research Associates, explained in 1998 that for decades, the Religious Right had already promoted a conspiracy theory that Christianity is under attack by “secular humanists.”
The idea that a coordinated campaign by “secular humanists” was aimed at displacing Christianity as the moral bedrock of America actually traces back to a group of Catholic ideologues in the 1960s. It was Protestant evangelicals, especially fundamentalists, who brought this concept into the public political arena and developed a plan to mobilize grassroots activists as foot soldiers in what became known as the Culture Wars of the 1980s….
The idea of a conscious and coordinated conspiracy of secular humanists has been propounded in various ways by a variety of national conservative organizations and individuals.
The late D. James Kennedy offered a characteristic use of the term:
“God forbid that we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to engage the enemy in this culture war.”
Here is Romney's April 3rd dog whistle in Wisconsin [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP8iBhGnNF8 (at the end, as embedded in the original)]:
“I think there is in this country a war on religion. I think there is a desire to establish a religion in America known as secularism.”
“They gave it a lot of thought and they decided to say that in this country that a church — in this case, the Catholic Church — would be required to violate its principles and its conscience and be required to provide contraceptives, sterilization and morning after pills to the employees of the church."
"Those of us who are people of faith recognize this is — an attack on one religion is an attack on all religion."
Don Byrd, the blogger at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, challenges [ http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4982&Itemid=134 ] Romney's claim:
Actually, churches and houses of worship are explicitly exempt from the coverage requirement, and President Obama announced his intention that the final rule should likewise exempt religious organizations that object to the mandate on religious grounds. HHS has asked for public comment on how best to accommodate the views of religious organizations like schools and hospitals while providing women with access to effective health care. How can that be a national religion of secularism?
Of course, a rule that makes such sweeping exemptions can hardly be called an attack on religious freedom or the establishment of a "religion of secularism," whatever that is.
When Romney and Santorum claim that president Obama, or anyone else, is trying to foist a religion of secularism on America, their audience hears something like what D. James Kennedy said without any need for elaboration. It has been stated so many times in so many ways as the fundamental battle of our time. If there is a culture war, this is what it is about. When you hear about the "war on Christmas" this is what it is about.
There is no more crass, calculated or profound a pander to the Religious Right than when Mitt Romney claims that minor federal rule making constitutes an effort to establish a "religion of secularism."
© Kos Media, LLC
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/05/1080794/-Romney-s-Dog-Whistle-in-Wisconsin [with comments]
===
Romney's weekend: Family photos or political fodder?
Mitt Romney's California beach house has been in the news because of renovation plans that include a car elevator.
From The CNN Political Unit
updated 7:10 PM EDT, Mon April 9, 2012
(CNN) -- It's not the way most Americans spent Easter weekend, but then again, most Americans aren't Mitt Romney. And that's the potential problem that will be leveraged against him in the battle for the White House.
The former Massachusetts governor and likely Republican presidential nominee spent the past few days with his family at his beach house in expensive and exclusive La Jolla, California. That's the same three-bedroom home, purchased for $12 million four years ago, that has made headlines over the past couple of years after reports of plans for a major remodeling and expansion.
The home was in the media spotlight again just a few weeks ago, amid reports that the proposed renovations, which would quadruple the size of the structure, included an auto elevator for a four-car garage.
Romney's GOP presidential campaign released a photo on Friday of Mitt and wife Ann Romney decorating Easter eggs with their grandchildren. On Sunday, Romney's son Matt tweeted out a photo of the family taking part in an Easter egg hunt on the expansive lawn belonging to their next-door neighbor.
Also over the weekend, a photo of Romney walking across the beach, wearing a wetsuit and holding a boogie board, made its way onto the political blogs. A day later, in response, son Matt, who's seen in the beach picture with his father, tweeted "water temp was low 60s. I was freezing in my full-length wetsuit. Guess my dad was just happy to be out there."
Are the photos much ado about nothing? Or are they an example of a candidate who might be tone-deaf to how most of the public actually lives.
In 2004, opponents used images of then-Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts windsurfing to tag him an elitist, lumping in windsurfing with some of his other expensive pastimes, including skiing and flying himself between vacation homes.
But boogie-boarding is not an expensive hobby, and a source close to the Romney campaign says it doesn't see a problem with the photos, and that like millions of other Americans, Romney spent the holiday weekend with his family.
"We had 11 of our grandkids staying with us and three of my boys and three of their, of course, their spouses," Romney said Monday, describing his weekend in an interview on former Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's radio program. "We had the Easter egg roll over the neighbor's lawn. He has a big lawn we use. We made Easter eggs, we went swimming and surfing in the water. We are in California. It is absolutely delightful."
Romney made millions at Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded in 1984, and at Bain and Company, a management firm he eventually ran. According to a financial disclosure form released by his campaign last year, Romney has assets totaling $190 million to $250 million in value.
He made $42.7 million over the past two years and paid $6.2 million in taxes, according to tax documents released earlier this year by his campaign. Mitt and Anne Romney filed a joint 1040 reporting $21.7 million in 2010 income and $3 million in federal taxes. They also said their 2011 income was $21 million and the tax bill was $3.2 million.
Besides the beach home in La Jolla, Romney owns a property along Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. He used to own a multimillion-dollar ski home in exclusive Deer Valley, Utah.
The "rich guy" and "Wall Street" images were issues for Romney when he first ran for the GOP presidential nomination four years ago. This time around, Romney has been more casual, often shedding the suit for a less buttoned-up look.
But he was attacked earlier in this primary season by rival Republican candidates, including Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, over his wealth.
According to a CNN/ORC International poll released two weeks ago, Republicans nationwide said that Santorum cares more about average Americans than Romney by 47% to 34%.
On the campaign trail, Romney talks bluntly about his financial status, saying, "I've been very successful and I'm not going to apologize for that."
And GOP strategist Ana Navarro says the worst thing Romney can do is be insincere.
"The worst thing Romney can do is pretend to be what he's not. We all know he's a wealthy man. He's a successful man. He's made his money. He doesn't need to apologize about it and the best he can do is embrace it, accept it, and not be awkward about it," Navarro told CNN.
"It's part of a package deal and -- let's face it -- we live in America. In America, being successful and being wealthy is a good thing, not something we resent," she added.
Another GOP strategist said Romney's success should be admired.
"The fact of the matter today, though, is that the American people are hurting. They're worried about their financial future, they're worried about their kids' financial future, and they look at Mitt Romney, who is a self-made guy and very successful, very successful over a number of different enterprises, and I think he's the kind of guy that the American people can look at and say we need this kind of success as a country," said Gentry Collins, who served as political director for both the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association and who ran Romney's 2008 operations in Iowa, but who says he is neutral this cycle.
Will photos of Romney on the beach, or at the La Jolla beach house, be used by the Democratic National Committee or the Obama re-election campaign? Stay tuned.
But Democrats are already making an issue of Romney's wealth through his opposition to the so-called "Buffett Rule," a push by the president and congressional Democrats to get those making more than $1 million a year to pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income and payroll taxes than those who make less.
The bill is named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has argued that it's unfair that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The measure would require that millionaires pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.
The legislation is opposed by most Republicans, and the Obama re-election team is targeting Romney for his opposition.
"Romney supports tax policies that reward people like him, and now he's just trying to obscure just how much he would benefit," said Obama re-election campaign manager Jim Messina, in a conference call Monday. "... Our message to Mitt is simple: If you don't have anything to hide, release your taxes just like every other candidate for president."
CNN Senior Correspondent Joe Johns contributed to this report.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/politics/romney-tone-deaf/index.html [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74080820 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74082139 and preceding (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
