summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2008-11-01 10:17 pm
summercomfort) wrote2008-11-01 10:17 pm
On being a Liberal
About 2 months ago I was driving home and heard this on the radio:
It was apparently Mitt Romney speaking at the RNC (full transcript here)
And 2 months later, his words still bothers me, this definition of Liberal. The the way these simple sentences conflate facts and opinions.
It reminds me of that elementary school trick where they say, "Were you hungry and stole his lunch?" Where the first half is yes--I was hungry, and the second half is no--I didn't steal his lunch, but you can't just answer a simple yes or a simple no -- you need to challenge the basic premise of the sentence, and as an elementary-schooler, you just can't.
Well, I'm not an elementary schooler anymore, so let's
Liberal = Eastern elites, editorial pages of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, broadcasters from the coast
When people say "Eastern elites", I picture WASP, Harvard, Ivory Tower, country clubs. (Please correct me if this mental image is wrong. I'm not so good with this American stuff sometimes).
Problem 1) This basically conflates "education" = "wealthy and disconnected from the real world". Well, yes, I'm educated, and I don't work a blue collar job, but nor am I in country clubs or in an "Ivory Tower" institution. This is scary for me because I can see it trending towards the false equation that education = not for "normal people" = not for "Americans". Education is a good thing that we should strive for and take pride in. It allows us to see more options in a world where the old solutions are increasingly not working. Education also helps us fairly evaluate said choices, including the "conservative" options. (Why I choose to read books on paper vs. on computer, for example.) Education isn't partisan. And education shouldn't be just for elites and the rich kids.
(Yes, people may cite that college campuses are generally more "liberal", but maybe we're just not defining the word liberal right.)
Problem 2) This also conflates editorial section of New York Times = editorial section of Washington Post = all reporting from New York Times and Washington Post = all media "from the coast". This is interesting, because before this, I've never quite figured out where the "liberal media" accusation came from. Basically the underlying assumption here is that "if I don't agree with your opinion, I shouldn't trust your reporting". So instead of assessing the bias in any news media and adjusting for that, you just ignore it altogether -- not only the opinions, but also the facts. Which is basically "If I don't agree with your opinion, I should not believe your facts." Which brings you to a state of "I only trust your facts if I agree with your opinion." This scares me because the underlying problem conflates opinions and facts-- "Truthiness". When Fox says they are "Fair and Balanced", you accept it as a fact, as truth, instead of an opinion. This problem of 兼听则明，偏听则暗 doesn't just apply to conservatives. How many liberals venture onto conservative "turf" to see their reporting? How many people who say "Bush is the worst president ever" can back it up with facts? (Education can help identify bias and correct for it. I'm teaching my students to evaluate sources and consider different perspectives).
Liberal = Supreme Court awarding terrorists at Guantanamo with constitutional rights
Problem 1) The assumption that all detainees at Guantanamo are terrorists. Especially when there is proof (in the form of actual people) that some are completely innocent.
Problem 2) Defining the Supreme Court as "liberal." While the Supreme Court can either have a constructivist or strict interpretation of the Constitution, that does not translate directly into the popular definition of "liberal" and "conservative." A Justice who protects the right to bear arms due to a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights would also protect the freedom of speech and assembly in the same way.
Problem 3) The implication that the Supreme Court is protecting terrorists. In fact, as stated in Problems 1 and 2, it's really the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution as guaranteeing rights of fair trial to prisoners. (Which might happen to include terrorists, murderers, and serial rapists, but also innocent people.)
Liberal = puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children
Problem 1) I may be biased because I'm a teacher, but not, it is NOT those teachers vs. our children. I'm there to teach them and guide them. Parents need to trust teachers, and teachers need to live up to that trust. But putting a wedge there? BAD.
Problem 2) False: Teachers union = evil. I didn't have a teachers union last year, which resulted in half of the teachers finding out that they will not be rehired the following year ... mid-May. As opposed to my roommate, who found out mid-March because that was in the union contract. Yes, teachers unions may protect some incompetant teachers from being fired, but they also protect competant teachers from being fired. They come with all the pros and cons of a union.
Problem 3) I may be reading this wrong, but this is about school vouchers, isn't it? As in, Public Schools = Teachers Union, School Vouchers = Our Children. Another case where a complex issue is so simplified it boggles my mind.
Liberal = stop nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants
Problem 1) False: stopping nuclear power and off-shore drilling = more dependent on Middle East. What about foreign oil that's not from the Middle East? What about other alternative energy sources? What about energy conservation?
Problem 2) False: Middle East = tyrants. Tyrants! That's just one step down from terrorists! Tyrants hate democracy! The Middle East is evil and wants to destroy us! They might want to invade our country, dismantle our government and impose their cultural ideals upon us! We cannot possibly negotiate with such tyrants, much less depend on them to sell us what we want. Down with tyranny! Yeah, seriously, when did the Middle East become the GreatSatanTyrant?
Liberal = doubling government spending from 1980, big government
Problem 1) False: government spending = fiscally liberal = socially/politically liberal. It's true that if you're spending money on the military, health care, or bailing out Wall Street, you're not being fiscally conservative. However, that does not mean you're socially/politically a liberal. Those three actions are generally categorized as politically conservative, liberal, and socialist.
Problem 2) Re-assigning agency. Instead of talking about who was responsible for doubling government spending, he just cleverly re-assigns it to the Democrats: Doubling government spending = liberal action = done by liberals = done by Democrats. Let's look at who's in Washington spending money in this time period: From 1981-2008 (97th-110th Congress), we've had 8 Republican/5 Democratic Senate majorities, and 6 Republican/8 Democratic House majorities, with 5 Democratic Congresses and 5 Republican Congresses. (from here) In the executive branch, we've had 20 years with Republican presidents and 8 years with a Democrat. So the Congress is pretty split down the middle, while Republicans occupied the White House 2/3s of the time. But wait, you say, you get more spending done if you have both the President and the Congress majority to be from the same party, so that no one is vetoing/overriding/filibustering the other. Well, we've got -- 1993-5 (D-Clinton), and 2003-2007 (R-Bush). In any case, hardly a Democrat-only spending bonanza. In fact, the recent big government spending is done by Republicans.
Well, that was fun. I am educated, I believe in the Constitutional rights of a prisoner, I value education and want to fix it, I think we need to have an energy alternative cocktail, and I believe in responsible government spending. So does that make me a liberal?
"You know, for decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east. You see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the — from the coast. Yes.
If America really wants to change, it’s time to look for the sun in the west, because it’s about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska.
Last week, the Democratic convention talked about change. But what do you think? Is Washington now, liberal or conservative? Let me ask you some questions.
Is a Supreme Court decision liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitutional rights? It’s liberal.
Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? It’s liberal.
Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants? It’s liberal.
Is government spending, putting aside inflation, liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It’s liberal.
We need change all right: change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.
We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington: Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
If America really wants to change, it’s time to look for the sun in the west, because it’s about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska.
Last week, the Democratic convention talked about change. But what do you think? Is Washington now, liberal or conservative? Let me ask you some questions.
Is a Supreme Court decision liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitutional rights? It’s liberal.
Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? It’s liberal.
Is a Congress liberal or conservative that stops nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more and more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants? It’s liberal.
Is government spending, putting aside inflation, liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It’s liberal.
We need change all right: change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.
We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington: Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
It was apparently Mitt Romney speaking at the RNC (full transcript here)
And 2 months later, his words still bothers me, this definition of Liberal. The the way these simple sentences conflate facts and opinions.
It reminds me of that elementary school trick where they say, "Were you hungry and stole his lunch?" Where the first half is yes--I was hungry, and the second half is no--I didn't steal his lunch, but you can't just answer a simple yes or a simple no -- you need to challenge the basic premise of the sentence, and as an elementary-schooler, you just can't.
Well, I'm not an elementary schooler anymore, so let's
Liberal = Eastern elites, editorial pages of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, broadcasters from the coast
When people say "Eastern elites", I picture WASP, Harvard, Ivory Tower, country clubs. (Please correct me if this mental image is wrong. I'm not so good with this American stuff sometimes).
Problem 1) This basically conflates "education" = "wealthy and disconnected from the real world". Well, yes, I'm educated, and I don't work a blue collar job, but nor am I in country clubs or in an "Ivory Tower" institution. This is scary for me because I can see it trending towards the false equation that education = not for "normal people" = not for "Americans". Education is a good thing that we should strive for and take pride in. It allows us to see more options in a world where the old solutions are increasingly not working. Education also helps us fairly evaluate said choices, including the "conservative" options. (Why I choose to read books on paper vs. on computer, for example.) Education isn't partisan. And education shouldn't be just for elites and the rich kids.
(Yes, people may cite that college campuses are generally more "liberal", but maybe we're just not defining the word liberal right.)
Problem 2) This also conflates editorial section of New York Times = editorial section of Washington Post = all reporting from New York Times and Washington Post = all media "from the coast". This is interesting, because before this, I've never quite figured out where the "liberal media" accusation came from. Basically the underlying assumption here is that "if I don't agree with your opinion, I shouldn't trust your reporting". So instead of assessing the bias in any news media and adjusting for that, you just ignore it altogether -- not only the opinions, but also the facts. Which is basically "If I don't agree with your opinion, I should not believe your facts." Which brings you to a state of "I only trust your facts if I agree with your opinion." This scares me because the underlying problem conflates opinions and facts-- "Truthiness". When Fox says they are "Fair and Balanced", you accept it as a fact, as truth, instead of an opinion. This problem of 兼听则明，偏听则暗 doesn't just apply to conservatives. How many liberals venture onto conservative "turf" to see their reporting? How many people who say "Bush is the worst president ever" can back it up with facts? (Education can help identify bias and correct for it. I'm teaching my students to evaluate sources and consider different perspectives).
Liberal = Supreme Court awarding terrorists at Guantanamo with constitutional rights
Problem 1) The assumption that all detainees at Guantanamo are terrorists. Especially when there is proof (in the form of actual people) that some are completely innocent.
Problem 2) Defining the Supreme Court as "liberal." While the Supreme Court can either have a constructivist or strict interpretation of the Constitution, that does not translate directly into the popular definition of "liberal" and "conservative." A Justice who protects the right to bear arms due to a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights would also protect the freedom of speech and assembly in the same way.
Problem 3) The implication that the Supreme Court is protecting terrorists. In fact, as stated in Problems 1 and 2, it's really the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution as guaranteeing rights of fair trial to prisoners. (Which might happen to include terrorists, murderers, and serial rapists, but also innocent people.)
Liberal = puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children
Problem 1) I may be biased because I'm a teacher, but not, it is NOT those teachers vs. our children. I'm there to teach them and guide them. Parents need to trust teachers, and teachers need to live up to that trust. But putting a wedge there? BAD.
Problem 2) False: Teachers union = evil. I didn't have a teachers union last year, which resulted in half of the teachers finding out that they will not be rehired the following year ... mid-May. As opposed to my roommate, who found out mid-March because that was in the union contract. Yes, teachers unions may protect some incompetant teachers from being fired, but they also protect competant teachers from being fired. They come with all the pros and cons of a union.
Problem 3) I may be reading this wrong, but this is about school vouchers, isn't it? As in, Public Schools = Teachers Union, School Vouchers = Our Children. Another case where a complex issue is so simplified it boggles my mind.
Liberal = stop nuclear power plants and off-shore drilling, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern tyrants
Problem 1) False: stopping nuclear power and off-shore drilling = more dependent on Middle East. What about foreign oil that's not from the Middle East? What about other alternative energy sources? What about energy conservation?
Problem 2) False: Middle East = tyrants. Tyrants! That's just one step down from terrorists! Tyrants hate democracy! The Middle East is evil and wants to destroy us! They might want to invade our country, dismantle our government and impose their cultural ideals upon us! We cannot possibly negotiate with such tyrants, much less depend on them to sell us what we want. Down with tyranny! Yeah, seriously, when did the Middle East become the Great
Liberal = doubling government spending from 1980, big government
Problem 1) False: government spending = fiscally liberal = socially/politically liberal. It's true that if you're spending money on the military, health care, or bailing out Wall Street, you're not being fiscally conservative. However, that does not mean you're socially/politically a liberal. Those three actions are generally categorized as politically conservative, liberal, and socialist.
Problem 2) Re-assigning agency. Instead of talking about who was responsible for doubling government spending, he just cleverly re-assigns it to the Democrats: Doubling government spending = liberal action = done by liberals = done by Democrats. Let's look at who's in Washington spending money in this time period: From 1981-2008 (97th-110th Congress), we've had 8 Republican/5 Democratic Senate majorities, and 6 Republican/8 Democratic House majorities, with 5 Democratic Congresses and 5 Republican Congresses. (from here) In the executive branch, we've had 20 years with Republican presidents and 8 years with a Democrat. So the Congress is pretty split down the middle, while Republicans occupied the White House 2/3s of the time. But wait, you say, you get more spending done if you have both the President and the Congress majority to be from the same party, so that no one is vetoing/overriding/filibustering the other. Well, we've got -- 1993-5 (D-Clinton), and 2003-2007 (R-Bush). In any case, hardly a Democrat-only spending bonanza. In fact, the recent big government spending is done by Republicans.
Well, that was fun. I am educated, I believe in the Constitutional rights of a prisoner, I value education and want to fix it, I think we need to have an energy alternative cocktail, and I believe in responsible government spending. So does that make me a liberal?
no subject
Yes, the typical view of an "East Coast elite" is the Harvard, country club type (you're not wrong on this), but that's not the definition -- after all, just about every single Republican is a rich white Protestant who probably belongs to a country club. But if you were to question them on this, they would tell you that even though they're from this background, they "get" what the small town people want.
Not that this idea of "coast vs flyover" is entirely manufactured. I can't tell you how many times that I've talked with New Yorkers or other coast types who look down with derision, or at the very least, feel sorry for, the "flyover states."
Yesterday I was canvassing at night, and for one house I had to take a gravel driveway that was seriously about quarter mile long. When I asked the guy living there who he was voting for, he exclaimed, "Are you kidding? I lean so far to the left! Every member of our family is voting for Obama!" and I asked him, "Even out here in Real America?"
The Republicans are really trying to push this idea of a "real America," which I find fascinating because it's the exact opposite thesis of the speech that made Barack Obama famous. I understand Obama is a politician, but I really think the moral disparities between the two parties this year is shocking.
And yes, deconstructing Republican speak is a very good exercise in logic. Get a hold of some Rush Limbaugh transcripts if you really want to see some crazy thinking.
no subject
A few questions. In critiquing the way Republicans tranfer their opinion of New York Times editorials to the New York Times at large, you describe their position as "I only trust your facts if I agree with your opinion." Would you make the same critique of Democrats who don't trust the reporting on Fox News? Isn't it at least possible that in the Times or on Fox, aspects of editorial opinion do creep into the news reporting? And if so, isn't it actually rational not to trust your facts if I don't agree with your opinion?
On the Supreme Court, I think you're generally right that strict vs. loose constructionism is a better way to explain the justices' voting behavior that partisan politics. But I'm not sure that's as true as it used to be, and it's not always true that the justices who are willing to brook Congressional interference with free speech are the same ones willing to brook interference with the right to bear arms. For instance, in this year's D.C. v. Heller, the court's "conservative wing" took the strict constructionist side, ruling in favor of the right to bear arms for personal defense. But in 2002's Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the conservative wing took the loose constructionist side on the First Amendment, saying that government could regulate free speech on the Internet in order to crack down on child pornography. (The exception was Clarence Thomas, who voted with the liberal wing majority, but took care to write his own concurring opinion.)
no subject
I'm also not touching the military spending = what sort of conservative question... except maybe you can explain why it's fiscally conservative to spend such a large % of the budget on defense (barring invasion of countries).
Now, the other one: "isn't it actually rational not to trust your facts if I don't agree with your opinion?"
Not really. Well, not to the extent of completely writing off those facts. While I think many liberals are equally guilty of completely writing of Fox News, the problem is distrusting all facts instead of assessing the robustness of these facts. For example, if I read on Fox News that Barack Obama has been palling around with terrorists, and cites Avery and that time when he was in Muslim garb in Kenya, I wouldn't say "Oh, Fox is lying because they're for McCain." Instead, I would say, "Well, let's see if those facts are true, and then I will interpret for myself whether that means Obama's been palling with terrorists." As in, I would be able to identify and evaluate the facts and adjust for bias. Instead of categorically rejecting everything on Fox News as false and untrustworthy.
no subject
As far as spending... the reason spending a high percentage of money on defense is conservative is that there are not very many reasons a good conservative is willing to spend money. A perfect conservative will not spend money on anything the private sector can take care of, from health care to education to (in the extreme case) highways. The only things a perfect conservative is grudgingly willing to spend money on are things that the market can't take care of -- namely, public goods. Military spending is just such a public good. Imagine a private company trying to provide national defense. Quite apart from how we instinctively recoil at the military being run for profit, there'd be no way to compel people to pay for soldiers and missiles, even though all people in America would equally enjoy the benefits of those soldiers and missiles. The only way we can force people to pay their share is to have the government levy taxes and run the military. Hence, the military and the justice system are the only uncontroversial things to spend money on in conservative circles.
no subject