Whose Side Are You On?

I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam.  So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.

John Cole notices what I have written about at length.   Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago.  Whose side are you on?  I have a better question.  Do you understand what you're doing?

jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures.  She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power.  I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest.  "Don't believe a word of it."  The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction.  They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it.  They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies.  In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.

the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.

And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark.  What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.

The ransom note is delivered.

The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.

Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:

"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.

SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:

I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.

I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:

both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?

So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  That is the Republicant agenda.  Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago.  They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back.  The media are helping them do that very thing.  I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.

They don't care about deficit reduction.  They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them.  They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail.  They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way.  I'm not partisan for pointing that out.  I'm realistic.  I simply wish more progressives were.

Comments

[Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers]

Yep. Abolutely right on. Both you and Steve M. I've been saying this for a long time now and have been branded a pariah. There IS no loyal opposition from the Pubbie side. It's destroy that country and bipartisanship be damned. If lefties can't figure this out by now, they DESERVE to take it up the pooper! They'd better learn to like it.

[lizard]

i wish you generated more interesting content at LitW, because i think you've got it in you, but you seem to prefer brawls over conversations.

as a new blogger i endured your hazing, and i did learn a lot, and for that i thank you.

but your new obsession with going after this "principled left" contingent you've conjured up is not serving you well.

maybe you think this will make you relevant with the DNC, so you're being a good little foot soldier.

good luck with that.

Obama is going to need all the help he can get to convince the base he's still better than Bush.

[Carfreestupidity]

I agree with you that the Rs will stop at nothing in their quest to prove that BO is the worst POTUS of all time. In this case they are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by cockblocking any and all proposals from the other side of the isle with the aim of stopping BO from having any major legislative victories. If Rs can make the claim that all BO accomplished was HCR they have the chance of establishing the narrative in this coming election cycle.

Even HCR was a pyrrhic victory because the Rs extracted so much blood and BO spent so much political capital on it that he has made little progress in other realms. And people will remember the process by which HCR was passed more than they will the actual legislation in the next election.

As for the fight over debt, I imagine the Rs are playing a game of chicken with default. Were the deadline to raise the ceiling to pass without a compromise the Rs would still come out of it better than the Ds. Troubles in the economy are laid squarely at the feet of the president, and so the economic havoc reaped from a technical default on gov't debt would hurt BO more than it would the Rs because of how ineffectual it makes BO appear.

[Steve T.]

Simple point on your first point:

Glenn Greenwald didn't ask people whose side they were on. Hillary Clinton did, and he quoted her.

But I know you wouldn't get in a tizzy about that - she's in power, and she's got a D behind her name. So it's probably not best to question anything that she does - it's bad for the party.

[Steve T.]

Am I alone in thinking that error is egregious enough to merit a correction? That was actually the first piece I've read from Greenwald in a while that didn't make me want to light myself on fire. And you didn't even read it.

[Wulfgar]

I read it, but my view was way too colored by the many many times I've seen Greenwald himself tell us what 'the real' progressives are. I took it more ironically than I should have.

As for 'a correction', you've already done so here. I'm not a newspaper editor, and that's the whole point of having blog comments. You're certainly not alone in thinking any error I make is egregious, but you are alone in stating it even remotely politely. And it wasn't a point. It's what I found as a humorous segue into the post.

Regarding your assumption, and big one it is, that I am somehow defending Clinton because she has a D behind her name, that's silly on it's face. You've been reading here a long time, so certainly you remember the very reasons I said I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton as POTUS, among them being her will to the DLC and support of exclusionary thinking. I like her as SOS because I believe she's done more for women in the international community than pretty much any before her. Whether you believe me or not, I pay very little attention to the SOS statements regarding international conflict and allied support of America. That's been bullshit for way too long.

[Steve T.]

Yeah, I wasn't polite. Some people piss you off more than others - and in that way you're not exactly different from the rest of us.

Points taken.

[Wulfgar]

Steve, you were actually polite. WTF? You and I gotta an altogether differnt idear of what's rude. See, like many of y'all miss completely, disagreement isn't rude. It's discourse. Please tell me that you of all people weren't suckered in by that illusion?

As far as I remember, you have yet to piss me off. Is that your intent? If so, I'll try harder.

[Steve T.]

I was referring to Greenwald having a greater ability to piss you off than Clinton. That probably has nothing to do with your ability to defend people in power with a D behind their name, as I originally implied - rather churlishly, I might add. We all have bloggers that we read who get under our skin easier than others.

I'm pretty sure we've pissed each other off here and there. But we get over it pretty quick. :-)

[Blog BrightestPersonality]

Hi! How do you think, have your writting skills upgraded recently?