 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/12/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is a hard column to read cause it makes some very serious accusations against the Bush Administration.
I am reminded of how when I raised objections against some of the policies of the Bush Administration at my family reunion this summer, my grandfather, God Bless his soul, raised the objection that if so many people are praying for Bush, how can we say that his administration has done wrong.
The article makes the prediction that so much will be at stake in who wins the next election that the next two years will be difficult years of increasing acrimony. If that is true then it will be truly be tragic for our country.
I believe that an increased autonomy of "evangelical" Christians politically is the way to change the balance of power, politically.
We must compromise on abortion and not mistake that the future of morality in the US is dependent on us getting a heterosexual marriage constitutional amendment passed. We must consider the tensions between some of our values and those of the economic conservatives and count the cost over what additional, new legislative priorities would be worth pressing for.
Exploiting the Atrocity
By PAUL KRUGMAN
n my first column after 9/11, I mentioned something everyone with contacts on Capitol Hill already knew: that just days after the event, the exploitation of the atrocity for partisan political gain had already begun.
In response, I received a torrent of outraged mail. At a time when the nation was shocked and terrified, the thought that our leaders might be that cynical was too much to bear. ``How can I say that to my young son?'' asked one furious e-mailer.
I wonder what that correspondent thinks now. Is the public - and the news media - finally prepared to cry foul when cynicism comes wrapped in the flag? America's political future may rest on the answer.
The press has become a lot less shy about pointing out the administration's exploitation of 9/11, partly because that exploitation has become so crushingly obvious. As The Washington Post pointed out yesterday, in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked 9/11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance. Meanwhile, the crudity of the administration's recent propaganda efforts, from dressing the president up in a flight suit to orchestrating the ludicrously glamorized TV movie about Mr. Bush on 9/11, have set even supporters' teeth on edge.
And some stunts no longer seem feasible. Maybe it was the pressure of other commitments that kept Mr. Bush from visiting New York yesterday; but one suspects that his aides no longer think of the Big Apple as a politically safe place to visit.
Yet it's almost certainly wrong to think that the political exploitation of 9/11 and, more broadly, the administration's campaign to label critics as unpatriotic are past their peak. It may be harder for the administration to wrap itself in the flag, but it has more incentive to do so now than ever before. Where once the administration was motivated by greed, now it's driven by fear.
In the first months after 9/11, the administration's ruthless exploitation of the atrocity was a choice, not a necessity. The natural instinct of the nation to rally around its leader in times of crisis had pushed Mr. Bush into the polling stratosphere, and his re-election seemed secure. He could have governed as the uniter he claimed to be, and would probably still be wildly popular.
But Mr. Bush's advisers were greedy; they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get everything they wanted, from another round of tax cuts, to a major weakening of the Clean Air Act, to an invasion of Iraq. And so they wrapped as much as they could in the flag.
Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels.
Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.
The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history. Four months ago it seemed that the 2004 campaign would be all slow-mo films of Mr. Bush in his flight suit. But at this point, it's likely to be pictures of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark that morph into Saddam Hussein. And Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex - its inability to admit ever making a mistake - will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.
In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/12/2003 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Whats even harder to read (and why I seldom do read you anymore) is when a Christian allows his hatred towards an individual to fester in the name of some political ideal. DLW, your hatred of Bush seems to give you the right to believe any cr*p that is published.
I do not hate Bush. I fear the longterm consequences of the gov't policies he has brought upon us.
quote:
Perhaps you would save us all a lot of time and write a book like AL Frankin, which everyone knows isn't real but satire. That way you can at least be on the track and that way people could give your personal hatred for Bush the benefit of the doubt.
What is real? The purported stimuli to the economy caused by tax-cuts? From a scientific standpoint, the degree that the tax-cuts will induce changes in behavior were not properly measured prior to the cuts. Am I spouting my hatred for Bush when I mention that among policy analysts, it is well known that empirically the distributional consequences of tax-changes are far more certain than the extent of the incentive effects?
quote:
When people lose the facts in a huff of personal self-righteousness they have nothing left to defend themselves. It must be hard to beso young and already know everything.
My friend, I do not know everything, but I do know somethings about governance thanks to my professional training and teaching. As such, please do not tell me I have lost the facts without delineating the widely accepted facts that I have indeed lost track of...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/15/2003 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: I apologize for the anomosity (mispelling) in my own post. It was uncalled for. However, I would point out that lies swing both ways and Bush, while president, is not responsible for everything that happens within our government.
If Bush is that bad, certainly any of the prospective canditates on the other side are equally as bad when they cannot seem to reframe from making personal attacks on Bush rather than simply sticking to the issues. All in all I would say there aren't many in politics today who make america proud.
I would also add that no matter what anyone's professional or acadmeic background, we all have our own prejudices and choices. Just because one knows a lot about a subject does not mean a person's choices are right. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/15/2003 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | DLW: I also wanted to add this: the article you posted was speculation. I would venture to also guess that the writer was not a Bush supporter. What does that tell you? That he had a prior prejudice against Bush. I also could find writers who would say the opposite. What does this prove? Probably nothing more than each stays on his own side... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/15/2003 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
DLW: I apologize for the anomosity (mispelling) in my own post. It was uncalled for. However, I would point out that lies swing both ways and Bush, while president, is not responsible for everything that happens within our government.
If Bush is that bad, certainly any of the prospective canditates on the other side are equally as bad when they cannot seem to reframe from making personal attacks on Bush rather than simply sticking to the issues. All in all I would say there aren't many in politics today who make america proud.
I would also add that no matter what anyone's professional or acadmeic background, we all have our own prejudices and choices. Just because one knows a lot about a subject does not mean a person's choices are right.
Thankyou HonorDude,
I agree that just because one has problems with the policies of the Bush Administration, doesn't make what should have been done instead immediately apparent. Trust me, when I say that, professionally, verifying the extent of the incentive effects from any tax-code change that could significantly affect tax-revenue with randomization is an idea whose time has come. It is just part of fiscal responsibility.
I think it is very important that we do a good job of ensuring that Iraq can have a stable, more pluralistic, democratic gov't with a separation of Mosque and State. Much of what is being said by the Dems candidates is an opportunistic taking of advantage of the fact that so many USAmericans have soured on the war and the economic costs that it is going to entail, out of isolationist selfishness.
Now, maybe if we had gone about going to war differently, we would have more countries shouldering more of the burden right now and in the Arab world, there wouldn't be so many volunteers to go and terrorize the US occupiers, but what matters most is deciding where we go from here.
peace,
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/15/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | First, if it was used, I highly doubt it was just one side. Second, professors tend to be extremely liberal, so I doubt an "esteemed" professor from "Anywhere" is neutral in the situation. Third, it was a column of his opinion, where he cites no sources but simply makes general statements. Fourth, an economist is hardly the person I would go to for his opinion on political matters.
"Some things are just not matters of opinion." Like what? That the columnist is right? That 911 should not be politicised? I would add that a lot of "esteemed" people do a lot of things without backing them up. And who is he "esteemed" by? Other professors who share his political views...I don't accept the notion that because you are an academic you are above the fray...usually, you are right in it... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/15/2003 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
First, if it was used, I highly doubt it was just one side.
Yes, but one could easily compare which side was using it more and on how many issues that are inappropriate.
quote:
Second, professors tend to be extremely liberal, so I doubt an "esteemed" professor from "Anywhere" is neutral in the situation.
That is not so. Professor's views do span the gamut and Krugman, while strongly opposed to many of the Bush Administration's policies, isn't that liberal on many other issues...
One could just as easily say that professors tend to be extremely smart and so we should trust their command of the facts more than others... .
quote:
Third, it was a column of his opinion, where he cites no sources but simply makes general statements.
Krugman has a "Truth-Squad" that follows up all of the facts that he quotes in his column. This means he has to be extra careful that they can in fact be corroborated. There isn't space in the column for the requisite corroboration, which tends to be somewhat tedious.
quote:
Fourth, an economist is hardly the person I would go to for his opinion on political matters.
The polity and the economy are very inter-related. To be a good economist these days, one has to have a decent understanding of how the political system works. They also both are trained to handle data and facts.
quote:
"Some things are just not matters of opinion." Like what? That the columnist is right? That 911 should not be politicised? I would add that a lot of "esteemed" people do a lot of things without backing them up. And who is he "esteemed" by? Other professors who share his political views...I don't accept the notion that because you are an academic you are above the fray...usually, you are right in it...
Whether or not 9-11 is being politicized. Whether or not the issues being proffered for debate are being manipulated.
If everything is opinion then there is no vantage point from which anyone can stand and point out how those in power are abusing their power and anyone, irregardless of their party affiliation, can abuse their power and typically there is a very strong incentive to do so...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/15/2003 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I think part of the problem, Honor-dude, is that we all tend to mix analysis and advocacy, which is an easy thing to do, particularly in an informal setting like this.
However, I do always offer reasoning for my views and the facts as I see them.
Often times, your posts deny the factuality of what I post, but don't offer any alternative understandings or support.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/16/2003 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I do not deny the facts of what you post, but rather I take issue with their onesidedness. I do not believe that people can truly analyzed without advocating, so I believe they are always mixed. Thats where all your problems come in. You believe these people are neutral, that all they are doing is stating the truth, because it is your view. You seem to think your professor is neutral. I do not believe there is such a thing. There were no facts, no people cited in his column. His column was pure opinion.
There are such a thing as facts, but all facts must be filtered through the advocate who is pronouncing them. You cannot have one without the other. The trick is to deciper them correctly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/16/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
I do not deny the facts of what you post, but rather I take issue with their onesidedness. I do not believe that people can truly analyzed without advocating, so I believe they are always mixed.
Yes, but there are distinctions in terms of level of advocacy and facts-mixing.
quote:
Thats where all your problems come in. You believe these people are neutral, that all they are doing is stating the truth, because it is your view. You seem to think your professor is neutral.
Krugman, neutral? No-way! But he is a top-notch economist and his advocacy is based on a very thorough understanding of the relevant history and economic issues. I mean, when I compare his analysis to Bush when Bush uses the econ-speak he learned from his MBA days, there is little comparison in their quality. One thing you learn in economics graduate school is to recognize the difference between sloppy and sophisticated economic reasoning and the difference between positive and normative reasoning.
quote:
I do not believe there is such a thing. There were no facts, no people cited in his column. His column was pure opinion.
There are such a thing as facts, but all facts must be filtered through the advocate who is pronouncing them. You cannot have one without the other. The trick is to deciper them correctly.
Well, please do feel free to decipher the facts. Krugman does make many factual statements that could be easily verified, even though his language is often very normatively-ladened.
All it would take is records of 9-11 being evoked in a partisan dispute that normally wouldn't be associated with the war against terrorism.
I think the point is that, in the wake of our nat'l tragedy, debate was maybe too quickly ended on what we should do about the tragedy so that we would be unified as a country. But that unity was used for some rather partisan measures like the tax-cuts and now the unity is dissolved and acrimony prevails at a very high level in our gov't at a time when we still need nat'l unity to maintain our strong presence in Iraq and ensure the future stability of Iraq and the Middle East.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|