“Duck Call Is The New Dog Whistle”: What Conservatives Support Is Not “Freedom”, But “Conformity” To A Conservative Culture
Put those dog whistles away. Judging by the hordes of red neck fans who rose up in angry protest after the star of the popular reality show Duck Dynasty was pulled from the airwaves for saying offensive things about blacks and gays, maybe we ought to start referring to these periodic eruptions of right wing agitation as “duck call politics.”
The reactions to duck call politics are as predictable as they are dispiriting. One Facebook friend of mine professed disbelief that her “liberal friends” had not instantaneously rallied around Phil Robertson once the embattled patriarch of Duck Dynasty was temporarily suspended for his tirade against gays which appeared in GQ earlier this month.
“When did America become a Gestapo State?” my friend wanted to know. “Come on people, this has to stop. Regardless of whether you agree with Phil, the America we love has to support his right to his personal convictions and his FREEDOM to say them.”
Sarah Palin has never let the facts stand in the way of an opportunity to stir up the perpetually resentful populist mob. And so, undeterred by the fact she’d never actually read or saw what Robertson had to say about gays and blacks, Palin nevertheless felt competent to weigh in that: “Those offended by what Phil Robertson said are offended by the Gospel.”
Shortly after the Duck Dynasty controversy began on December 18, Palin wrote on her Facebook page that: “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
Palin’s comment drew over 428,000 “likes.”
Now, let’s be clear. When former Pope Benedict said that “tradition” based on Sacred Scripture “has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” he was expressing a religious opinion. It may have been hurtful, or wrongheaded, or even un-Christian in my view. But when Benedict said that homosexual acts are “contrary to the natural law” because they “close the sexual act to the gift of life” and do not proceed “from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” and so “under no circumstances can they be approved” he was still expressing his interpretation of what Catholic doctrine requires.
What Phil Robertson did was altogether different. Robertson was just being crude and hateful when he told a reporter for GQ: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived (he said paraphrasing Corinthians) neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Robertson then went further: “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Not content to confine his tastelessness to gays, Robertson also resurrected the embarrassing minstrel show fixture of the “Happy Negro,” a stock character whose origins go all the way back to Southern slave apologists like George Fitzhugh, who said “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest and, in some sense, the freest people in the world.”
Fitzhugh was one of those Southern “fire-eaters” who believed the condition of the Southern slave compared favorably to that of the wage earner in the North since, as he said, slaves were “capital” whose “owners” paid dearly for them. And so “when slaves are worth $1,000 a head they will be cared for and well provided for” – unlike, he inferred, the expendable, exploitable and readily disposable wage slaves of the North.
Brought up-to-date by the likes of Phil Robertson, Fitzhugh’s repulsive idea sounds something like this: “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’-not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
For the relatively minor consequences he faced for these boorish remarks, Phil Robertson has become a celebrated martyr on the right and their latest cause célèbre. Conservatives have hoisted Robertson up on their shoulders as a cultural icon whose “brave” words are what other right wingers wish they could voice but for one reason or another can’t bring themselves to say out loud.
Nevertheless, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. And what Phil Robertson said to GQ was anti-gay bigotry, plain and simple, whose open hostility towards these minorities is precisely why conservatives are now retroactively trying to dignify Robertson’s ugly hatefulness by wrapping it in the holy vestments of religious expression and free speech.
But the argument is hollow because Robertson’s fans are no more concerned with free speech than was the Tea Party with debts and deficits as they stood immobile and mute for eight long years while Republicans under George W. Bush doubled both until the Tea Party rose up in spontaneous and righteous anger the moment the American people had the effrontery to elect a black man as their President.
Right wing conservatives are not rallying around Robertson because they are the principled advocates of free speech or dedicated students of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Milton’s Areopagitica.
There were no angry outcries from conservatives a decade ago when the Dixie Chicks were being banned from one country music station after another, or having their records burned, once the superstar group said some contrarian things about President Bush and his baseless invasion of Iraq way back in 2003 when such anti-war opposition was unpopular but really mattered.
Country stations pulled the Dixie Chicks after lead singer Natalie Maines told a London audience she was “ashamed” that Bush hailed from Texas, where the Chicks are also from.
Soon, station managers were flooded with calls from angry listeners who thought the Chick’s criticism of Bush was “unpatriotic.” One station in Kansas City even held a Dixie “chicken toss” party where listeners were encouraged to dump the group’s tapes, CDs and concert tickets into trash cans.
“We’ve got them off the air for right now,” said Jeff Garrison, program director at KILT in Texas. “People are shocked. They cannot believe Texas’ own have attacked the state and the president.”
When the Dixie Chicks were preparing for their nationwide Top of the World Tour, death threats caused promoters to install metal detectors at the shows. In Dallas, fears for the safety of the group led police to provide an escort from the show to the airport.
A Colorado radio station suspended two of its disc jockeys for playing music by the Dixie Chicks. When the group was nominated for Entertainer of the Year at the Academy of Country Music awards in Las Vegas, host Vince Gill had to remind the booing audience that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech.
Even President Bush weighed in, telling Tom Brokow: “the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. Freedom is a two-way street.”
Yes, freedom is a two-way street. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion just not their own TV show. People are free to speak their mind and other people are free to retaliate by writing letters, organizing boycotts or taking offensive people off the air.
But what the Dixie Chicks did, it’s important to keep in mind, was criticize President Bush for the political acts he took while in office. Phil Robertson, on the other hand, was merely insulting gays and blacks for being who they are. Then he and his supporters used religion to hide their sin.
The idea that conservatives are civil libertarians who support free speech and diversity is a comic farce in any case, for what conservatives support is not “freedom” but “conformity” to a conservative culture where people have sex in the missionary position with members of the opposite sex or not at all, and where country music groups don’t criticize God-fearing Republican presidents, especially if they are from Texas, for waging wars against the non-Christian infidel.
And if accomplishing this agenda means banning celebrities from the airwaves one minute and then attacking TV networks for doing the same thing to other celebrities the next, then so be it.
By: Ted Frier, Open Salon, December 26, 2013
“Things Are Looking A Lot Better”: We Don’t Know If Obamacare Is Working Well, But We Know It’s Working
Obamacare got off to a lousy start. But things are looking a lot better now.
Nearly a million people signed up for private health plans via healthcare.gov in December, according to statistics the Obama Administration released on Sunday morning. That pushed the total number of sign-ups for the year to 1.1 million. Combined with the totals that states are likely to report by year’s end, it probably means more than 2 million people have signed up for private health insurance though the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. That doesn’t count several million who enrolled in Medicaid, the newly expanded federal-state program that provides insurance to low-income people.
The official enrollment number doesn’t tell us many things. It doesn’t tell us whether these people getting private (or public) coverage had insurance previously—or, if they had insurance, how much they were paying for it. It doesn’t tell us how many of these people have actually paid premiums, which is essential for coverage to take effect. It doesn’t tell us whether insurers have proper data on these people or what kind of access and protection the new coverage will give. It doesn’t tell us how many of the enrollees are in relatively good health or how many are in relatively poor health—or how that mix will affect insurance prices going forward.
In addition, the numbers do not appear to match the Administration’s own targets. According to internal projections, later reported by the Associated Press, officials expected more than 3.3 million enrollments by year’s end, with about 1.8 million of those coming through the federal website.
For all of those reasons, and a few others, it’s premature to say Obamacare is meeting expectations.
But those internal enrollment targets don’t include people who signed up for coverage directly through insurers. And while lower-than-predicted enrollment could be a sign consumers don’t like the new policies, they could also represent the lingering effects of the site’s technical problems. The internal projections were never particularly scientific: Administration officials extrapolated them from the Congressional Budget Office’s projection of overall private plan enrollment in 2014 (about 7 million) and with necessarily imperfect data from prior programs. “What’s important now is that the systems are mostly functioning so that anyone who wants to get coverage can,” says Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “The outreach campaigns and advertising by insurers likely haven’t peaked yet, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if enrollment in March is even bigger than December.”
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an architect of reforms, has a similarly nuanced take. “Given the technical problems at the start, and given that the important deadline is March 31, what matters right now is the trend in enrollment. In terms of overall enrollment, the trend looks quite good,” Gruber says. “What matters more is the mix in terms of the health of those enrolling, and we won’t have a clear answer on that until we see 2015 rates from insurers.”
While we wait to see more numbers—and parse the meaning of the numbers we have—we do know a few things for sure.
We know, first and foremost, that healthcare.gov is a (mostly) functioning website. This was no sure thing even a few weeks ago. At the end of November, when officials announced that they had met their goal of constructing a website that worked well for most customers, they were cautious to warn about future problems. Partly that was because their previous predictions of success proved so unbelievably wrong. And partly that was because they feared a late surge of customers would overwhelm the site’s capacity, threatening a whole new period of chaos. But the system held up just fine, as the high enrollment numbers indicate.
More important, we know that many of the people getting insurance are very, very happy to have it. In the fall, when insurers began sending notices of rate increases and plan cancellations, all we heard about was people unhappy with—and in many cases angry about—their new options. Now, however, we are increasingly hearing stories about people who are saving money and, in some cases, getting access to health care they’ve desperately needed for a long time.
Here two examples, culled from a new story by Lena Sun and Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post:
Adam Peterson’s life is about to change. For the first time in years, he is planning to do things he could not have imagined. He intends to have surgery to remove his gallbladder, an operation he needs to avoid another trip to the emergency room. And he’s looking forward to running a marathon in mid-January along the California coast without constant anxiety about what might happen if he gets injured.
These plans are possible, says Peterson, who turned 50 this year and co-manages a financial services firm in Champaign, Ill., because of a piece of plastic the size of a credit card that arrived in the mail the other day: a health insurance card. …
Dan Munstock knows this. A 62-year-old retiree in Greenville, Tenn., he hasn’t had insurance since he left his job as a crisis counselor in Miami six years ago. He lives on Social Security income of less than $15,000 a year. Although he does not know of any major ailments, he would like a checkup because, he said, “you can seem fine until the day you drop over with something.”
Like thousands of other Americans, Munstock ran into technical problems with the federal Web site before managing to pick a health plan Dec. 1. He qualified for a federal subsidy to help him afford the insurance, so he has to pay just $87.57 a month toward his premium. After his welcome packet from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee arrived in the mail, Munstock was so eager to finish the process of enrolling and getting an insurance card that he picked up the phone to pay the first premium instead of using the mail.
“It felt really good,” he said. Paying toward his own insurance, he said, gives him “a certain dignity,” a feeling that he is not “one of the takers.” The next day, he called the doctor’s office. His appointment for a physical is Jan. 2. …
Like the stories of rate hikes and plan cancellations, anecdotes of people gaining insurance or saving money will frequently prove more complicated than they seem at first blush. Some people will discover they owe more out-of-pocket costs than they imagined, because of high deductibles and co-payments. Some won’t be able to see the doctors they want, because plans have limited networks of providers. Some will haggle with insurers over particular bills or services. And that’s not to mention the many other trade-offs in the law—like higher taxes on the wealthy, cuts to various industry groups, higher premiums for some people buying their own coverage, and other steps that made possible the law’s expansion of health insurance.
But nobody ever promised that Obamacare would solve all of the health care system’s ills—or that it would come without costs of its own. The goal has always been to make insurance more widely available, so that more people had access to care and protection from crippling medical bills, while beginning the difficult work of reengineering medical care to make it more efficient. The new enrollment numbers should give us new reason to think it will.
By: Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, December 29, 2013
“A Picture Of Massive Corruption And Cowardice”: The Decline Of The American Justice System
Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor, has an interesting piece in the NYRB about why there have been no prosecutions of financial industry employees over the systemic fraud surrounding the financial crisis. The whole piece is worth a read, but here are the main points boiled down:
1) The FBI is consumed with terrorism, apparently cutting their financial fraud investigation force from over a thousand agents before 2001 to about 120 by 2007. Whether that’s justifiable or not, it does remind me of a line from one of the finest action movies of all time: “Jesus man, wake up! National security’s not the only thing going on in this country.”
2) Regulators and law enforcement, especially at the SEC, have been focused on insider trading cases and Ponzi schemes like the Madoff affair, which are easier to investigate and to prosecute. Mortgage and securities fraud, by contrast, are far more complex and difficult.
3) Government complicity. This isn’t a bad point, but Rakoff directs too much blame at subsidies for the poor. As I’ve written in the past, the whole government housing policy regime, most definitely including subsidies for the rich like the home mortgage interest deduction, are to blame as well.
4) A new trend in prosecuting companies instead of individuals. This seems unambiguously true, and it’s a reminder of how new trends in legal theories always seem to move in the direction of increased subsidies and decreased accountability for wealthy elites.
Those points are all fair enough. But taken together, I don’t think they go nearly far enough. As an instrumental account of the details of why these prosecutions aren’t happening, it makes a lot of sense. Though, for the record, they might not even be instrumentally true: according to a new David Kay Johnston report, the Justice Department has been running interference for JPMorgan Chase against Treasury investigators.
But in any case, make no mistake: added up, this is a picture of massive corruption and cowardice at the top levels of our law enforcement agencies. Because regardless of whatever structural trends are happening, no prosecutor with a single fair bone in her body could possible tolerate, oh I don’t know, a minor slap on the wrist for laundering money for drug traffickers and terrorists.
By: Ryan Cooper, Washington Monthly Political Animal, December 27, 2013
“More Bark Than Bite”: Tomorrow’s Obamacare Controversy, Today
If past is precedent, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee will soon release a draft memo they requested and received from the Health and Human Services Department just before most Washingtonians decamped for the Christmas holiday.
At first glance, the memo, obtained by National Journal, looks very bad for the Obama administration. In the Sept. 24 document, a top information security officer for the agency overseeing the Obamacare insurance exchanges warns that the marketplace “does not reasonably meet … security requirements” and that “there is also no confidence that Personal Identifiable Information (PII) will be protected.” Teresa Fryer, the chief information security officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, continues: The federal marketplace will likely “not be ready to securely support the Affordable Care Act … by October 1, 2013.”
It plays right into the Republican narrative about HealthCare.gov: The administration knew the website would not be ready by the launch date but went ahead with it anyway. And the site may still not be adequately protecting consumers’ information.
But, in context, the draft memo becomes much less exciting.
On the Friday before Christmas, Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, released a partial transcript from an interview conducted by the panel’s staff with Fryer. That partial transcript, shared with ABC and CBS, suggested that Fryer warned the administration that there were two findings of serious vulnerabilities in the system.
However, when Democrats on the Oversight Committee released parts of the transcript omitted from Issa’s version, Fryer’s comments looked far less explosive, and ABC updated its story to reflect the change. It turns out that by Sept. 27, a few days after Fryer raised her concerns about the security at launch, extensive new security measures were added.
As she told the committee’s investigators, “The added protections that we have put into place in accordance with the risk decision memo … are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended.” She went on to describe her confidence in the three-level security system and to note that there have been “no successful breaches [or] security incidents.”
Which brings us back to the draft memo we obtained. We should note that it was just a draft, and was never sent or reviewed by more senior officers in the chain of command, and was written three days before the mitigation strategies went into effect. She later told Oversight Committee investigators that her earlier recommendation against giving the go-ahead to launch the site—the “authority to operate,” as it’s called—did not take into account the mitigation strategies laid out in the Sept. 27 Authority to Operate memo.
The investigators asked Tony Trenkle, then-CMS’ top information executive, this: “So as long as the mitigation strategy described in the [ATO] memo was carried out, you considered that it was, it would be sufficient to mitigate the risks described in the memo?” He responded, “Yes.”
She added that she was “satisfied” with the current security testing, and that she did not object when another CMS information security officer decided to move ahead with the launch. Again, she stated: “All systems are susceptible to attacks. There have been no successful attempts.”
As the Los Angeles Times‘ Pulitzer Prize-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik noted, “Issa has absolutely no evidence” to support his broader claims that the system’s deep vulnerabilities put all kinds of consumers’ government data at risk, and that CMS moved ahead anyway to avoid embarrassing the White House.
Of course, sleight of hand with opaque bureaucratic documents is nothing new for Issa, but the potential to dissuade Americans from obtaining health insurance through the federal exchanges because of trumped up security fears has pushed relations between the committee chair and the administration to a new low. It’s one thing to say without evidence that the administration is corrupt, but it’s another to tell Americans that their Social Security number is at risk when there’s nothing to suggest that’s true.
But perhaps we can head off another round of this farce by putting out Fryer’s memo before Issa does—in its full context.
By: Alex Seitz-Wald, The National Journal, December 24, 2013
“Artificially Polarizing The Country”: Redistricting Reform Should Be Priority Number One
I became political aware at a young age and took a keen interest in the 1980 Republican primaries when I was only nine and ten years old. I still have cartoons I drew at the time that depicted Ronald Reagan as a warmonger intent on blowing up the world with nuclear weapons. This wasn’t something I learned from my parents. It was my own opinion. In retrospect, it was a little bit alarmist. I should have been worried about other things, like the long-term destruction of the middle class or a propensity to sell TOW missiles to Iran to pay a ransom for hostages held by Hizbollah in order to illegally transfer the proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua. But, a nine year old’s capacity to imagine evil only goes so far.
When I see a book title like Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked, I want to claw my eyeballs out. Yet, I do understand what Chris Matthews is pining for, and it isn’t the fjords. However much Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan disagreed, they were civil to each other, and they knew how to strike a deal without threatening to default on the country’s debts. For Washington insiders of a certain age, there is a keen sense of nostalgia for the old days when politicians didn’t go home to their districts every weekend but stayed in town and socialized with each other.
Perhaps no one represents this group better than Cokie Roberts, who was almost literally raised in the Capitol Building. Her father, Hale Boggs, represented Louisiana’s 2nd District in 1941-43 and then from 1947 to 1972, when his plane disappeared in Alaska. By the time of his death, he had risen to be the Majority Leader, the same position held today by Eric Cantor. By that time, Cokie Roberts was an adult, but her mother, Liddy Boggs, went on to represent the New Orleans-based district until she retired to look after her dying daughter (Cokie’s sister) in 1990. I found a set of interviews that Ms. Roberts did with the Office of the Historian of the House of Representatives in 2007 and 2008, (you can read the interviews here in .pdf form) in which she describes her life growing up in the corridors of power and how things have changed.
In the following excerpt, she laments the use of the gerrymander, which she calls “picking your own voters.” In her opinion, the increasing efficiency with which the political parties draw the congressional maps is one of the main reasons why Congress is so deadlocked. Keep in mind that she said this in 2008, before things got even worse after the 2010 census and subsequent redrawing of district maps.
ROBERTS: I think that what this business of picking your voters—first of all, is so anti-democratic—it does a few very, very bad things. It creates a far more partisan chamber because you only worry about getting attacked from the true believers of your own party in a primary rather than a general election. Look what just happened to Chris [Christopher B.] Cannon as a perfect example of that.
You do only represent people who are just like you, so that your desire or even ability to compromise is far less than it used to be. I’ll give you an example. Bob Livingston used to represent a district that was 30- percent black. So he voted for fair housing, he voted for Martin Luther King holiday, he voted for a variety of things that were not the things that people whose representative in the state legislature was David Duke expected him to do. But he could explain to the yahoos in his district that he had to do it because of the black constituency when it was actually stuff that he wanted to do. Then it was redistricted to be lily-white conservative Republicans, and, you know, it’s almost impossible for that person—it was [David] Vitter, I don’t know who it is now—to do that. You just have to be fighting your constituency all the time to do something that would be a sort of national interest thing to do. And that’s true on both sides. It just makes legislating and governing much, much harder.
The President [George W. Bush], actually, was talking to me—I don’t often get to say, “The President was talking to me about it,” {laughter}—when I went with him to meet the Pope. We were talking about immigration, and he’s, you know, he’s basically just furious about immigration, about the failure of the bill, and he said, “It’s all about the way districts are drawn.” And it is fundamentally anti-democratic because the whole idea is you get to throw these people out. In 2006, I must say I was heartened, not for partisan reasons, but I thought they had drawn the districts so cleverly that you’d never be able to register that vote of no confidence, which an off-year election is—it’s either a vote of confidence or no confidence—I was afraid that that had been taken away from the voters, which would really be different from what the Founders had in mind. So the fact that even with that, you were able to change parties and register that vote was heartening, but it’s much harder than it should be.
There has been some debate recently about whether or not Justice Ginsburg should strategically retire from the Supreme Court to prevent a Republican president from appointing her successor. Ginsburg defends her continued presence of the Court by arguing that President Obama will be succeeded by a Democrat because “The Democrats do fine in presidential elections; their problem is they can’t get out the vote in the midterm elections.” She’s probably right in her prediction about Obama’s successor, but she is definitely correct that the Democrats have trouble getting out their vote in midterm elections. With the districts drawn the way there are, this threatens to prevent the people from expressing their vote of confidence or no confidence.
According to the Cook Political Report, the Democrats should have won the 2012 House elections.
By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.
It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis.
So, there are really two things here worthy of consideration. The first is that the gerrymander has the effect of artificially polarizing the country by creating districts that are only really contestable in primary, rather than general elections. Politicians are punished for cooperating more than they should be.
The second problem is a partisan one that only hurts the left. Democrats get less seats than they should have.
Yet, the first problem hurts the left, too, because it leads to dysfunctional government, which leads to a general disdain of government in the populace, which creates distrust about the government’s ability to do big things.
For these reasons, I believe that progressives should consider redistricting reform their top priority. Unless we can solve this problem, we will never be competing on a level playing field, and our ability to do great things will continue to erode.
Unlike Chris Matthews and Cokie Roberts, I don’t want to go back to some idyllic time of bipartisan cooperation that barely existed in reality, but I do want a fair shake and a government that works again.
By: Martin Longman, Washington Monthly Political Animal, December 28, 2013
Share This Blog
mykeystrokes.com- “The Unrelenting Hostility Of Washington’s Courtier Press”: The Media’s Crusade Of Scandals Against Hillary Clinton
- “Endorsing This Philistine”: The Christian Right Has Surrendered To Trump
- “Cop Killers Serve No Cause”: It’s Getting To The Point Where No Lives Matter
- “We’re Not Post-Racial Yet”: The Demons Of Our Racist Past Still Haunt Us
- “Ghosts Of History”: Why America Recoils From Donald Trump
mykeystrokes.com 