Even in midst of endless political bickering, it seemed for many years that individuals on both sides of the aisle were able to agree on the general definitions (if not the specific ones) of "conservative" and "liberal." Just to be fair, let's go with the dictionary definitions:
Conservative: "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion."
Liberal: "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."
These broad definitions have been generally accepted for quite a long time. However, I've noticed these same generally-accepted definitions being recklessly discarded during the latest political season. A large portion of our nation is taking a sharp right turn, but rather than acknowledging that fact, many are insisting that what was once the center is now the far left, and what was once the far left is now Socialist Communist Muslim Nazism. This year's crop of Republican candidates have been required to engage in a game of, "Who's the real conservative?" in the hopes of winning the nomination. For a candidate to come forward and say, "I'm a right-leaning moderate who's willing to examine both sides of an issue and carefully weigh them before making a decision" would be fatal. Instead, they must essentially say, "I am a diehard conservative who is willing to go so far to the right that it will make your head spin, and my opponents are nothing more than shifty liberals."
Right now, there are four Republican candidates left in the race: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. According to the non-partisan website ontheissues.org, the four candidates are classified as follows.
- Ron Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian
- Newt Gingrich is a Hard-Core Conservative
- Mitt Romney is a Populist-Leaning Conservative
- Rick Santorum is a Hard-Core Conservative
You may notice that Ron Paul is officially labeled a Libertarian rather than a conservative, though that certainly doesn't exclude him from holding conservative views. In fact, back in 2004, the American Journal of Political Science named Paul the single most conservative congressperson since 1937 (out of over 3000 individuals examined). Meanwhile, Romney is a conservative who leans towards populism, which is an explicitly different thing than leaning towards moderation. Former candidates Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are all labeled Hard-Core Conservatives. In fact, the only Republican candidate ontheissues.org officially labeled a "centrist" is Jon Huntsman (he's against abortion and gun control, but in favor of civil unions, protecting the environment and helping illegal immigrants earn citizenship), who was consistently in last place among the major candidates before wearily dropping out of the race.
So, what we have left are four very conservative candidates. And yet, to hear both conservative analysts and the Republican candidates talk about each other, you would think that the Republicans are little more than hardcore liberals wearing conservative Halloween masks.
"The only way to stop the Massachusetts liberal is to vote for Newt Gingrich." - Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney
"He's the most liberal, radical left-wing person to run for President in the last fifty years." - Conservative Fox News Commentator Dick Morris on Ron Paul
"He's very liberal." - Ron Paul on Rick Santorum
"[Considering] his past criticism of fiscal conservatives, it's no wonder his campaign hasn't left the launch pad." - Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich
Look, politicians distort the truth. It's what they do. However, both the media and the general public are permitting the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" to shift by simply refusing to push back against these people. No, the news networks are not separate-but-equal brands of evil, but all of them are consistently terrible about mistaking indifferent silence for objectivity. It is entirely common to see two opposing pundits invited onto a news panel to debate an issue. The debate will often go something like this:
Pundit #1: "President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, hates white people and wants to kill your grandmother."
Pundit #2: "None of those things are true."
Program Host: "Two opposing viewpoints. You decide which one is true. Let's take a look at a poll examining your thoughts, and then read some letters getting your point-of-view of the matter. Up next, adorable puppies!"
At a glance, this may seem like a reasonable way to conduct a program. After all, both sides got to make their case, right? Ah, but that's the thing: one side is telling blatant lies, and the other is not. As such, it's the responsibility of the news media to call them on it and then refuse to grant the lying party a podium to spew their preposterous beliefs in the future. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that Pundit #1 makes for better television than Pundit #2, and the sadder fact is that many members of the public are entirely willing to gobble up the sensationalism of Pundit #1 because it fits more comfortably with their own preconceived notions than the fact-based perspective of Pundit #2. So Pundit #1 is invited onto more panels where his opinions are shared with more people, giving him an ever-increasing air of legitimacy. After all, he wouldn't be on the news if he was just making all of this up, right?
Today's political figures are quickly catching onto this trend and capitalizing on it with a vengeance. The claims are getting bolder and wilder, erroneous statements are offered with increasing confidence and the level of fervor among the public is reaching an unnerving fever pitch. Seemingly decent, reasonable people are transformed into belligerent acolytes of the candidate they have chosen, fueled on by the rabid war cries of attention-hungry pundits willing to back the public's prejudices regardless of the cost. News coverage of candidates is playing like a higher-stakes version of Entertainment Tonight. Just as the actual films made by movie stars are ignored in favor of the gossip and behind-the-scenes drama, the actual policies of the politicians are ignored in favor of the useless name-calling, sensationalist hype and spectacle. We're being dragged into an ultraconservative fantasy world in which the timid, moderate, clunky, compromised health care legislation which was passed somehow passes for dangerous socialism and a suggestion that maybe we should require someone to learn how to use a gun before they're allowed to purchase one is dismissed as radical extremism. Progressive politics have been given an ugly stigma, and in most parts of the country it's impossible for a politician to declare their liberalism with half as much pride as a politician can declare their conservatism (Yes, yes, I can hear you now: "That's because liberals have nothing to be proud of!"). If that's the world people want to live in, so be it. But don't stand on the far right side of the room and try to convince me that it's the center.
Did you see the Chrysler ad featuring Clint Eastwood (one of Hollywood's most notable Republicans) which aired during the Superbowl? It's hardly the Gettysburg address, but I was kind of moved by it, because it was a simple, direct, non-partisan plea for all of us to band together and act like grown-ups. Here's what Clint gently growled:
"It's halftime. Both teams are in the locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It's halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they're hurting. And they're wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared, because this isn't a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together; now Motor City is fighting again. I've seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when it seemed like we didn't understand each other. It seems like we've lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after all those trials, we rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way through, then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win? Detroit's showing us it can be done. And, what's true about them is true about all of us. This country can't be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it's halftime America. And our second half is about to begin."
Again, it's just a car commercial. But it was a welcome reminder of some important things, and its weight seemed amplified by the lack of substance in the programming which surrounded it.
The next day, Karl Rove went on Fox News to comment on the ad: "The leadership of auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage. It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are using tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Back at ya later
Right now, there are four Republican candidates left in the race: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. According to the non-partisan website ontheissues.org, the four candidates are classified as follows.
- Ron Paul is a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian
- Newt Gingrich is a Hard-Core Conservative
- Mitt Romney is a Populist-Leaning Conservative
- Rick Santorum is a Hard-Core Conservative
You may notice that Ron Paul is officially labeled a Libertarian rather than a conservative, though that certainly doesn't exclude him from holding conservative views. In fact, back in 2004, the American Journal of Political Science named Paul the single most conservative congressperson since 1937 (out of over 3000 individuals examined). Meanwhile, Romney is a conservative who leans towards populism, which is an explicitly different thing than leaning towards moderation. Former candidates Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are all labeled Hard-Core Conservatives. In fact, the only Republican candidate ontheissues.org officially labeled a "centrist" is Jon Huntsman (he's against abortion and gun control, but in favor of civil unions, protecting the environment and helping illegal immigrants earn citizenship), who was consistently in last place among the major candidates before wearily dropping out of the race.
So, what we have left are four very conservative candidates. And yet, to hear both conservative analysts and the Republican candidates talk about each other, you would think that the Republicans are little more than hardcore liberals wearing conservative Halloween masks.
"The only way to stop the Massachusetts liberal is to vote for Newt Gingrich." - Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney
"He's the most liberal, radical left-wing person to run for President in the last fifty years." - Conservative Fox News Commentator Dick Morris on Ron Paul
"He's very liberal." - Ron Paul on Rick Santorum
"[Considering] his past criticism of fiscal conservatives, it's no wonder his campaign hasn't left the launch pad." - Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich
Look, politicians distort the truth. It's what they do. However, both the media and the general public are permitting the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" to shift by simply refusing to push back against these people. No, the news networks are not separate-but-equal brands of evil, but all of them are consistently terrible about mistaking indifferent silence for objectivity. It is entirely common to see two opposing pundits invited onto a news panel to debate an issue. The debate will often go something like this:
Pundit #1: "President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, hates white people and wants to kill your grandmother."
Pundit #2: "None of those things are true."
Program Host: "Two opposing viewpoints. You decide which one is true. Let's take a look at a poll examining your thoughts, and then read some letters getting your point-of-view of the matter. Up next, adorable puppies!"
At a glance, this may seem like a reasonable way to conduct a program. After all, both sides got to make their case, right? Ah, but that's the thing: one side is telling blatant lies, and the other is not. As such, it's the responsibility of the news media to call them on it and then refuse to grant the lying party a podium to spew their preposterous beliefs in the future. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that Pundit #1 makes for better television than Pundit #2, and the sadder fact is that many members of the public are entirely willing to gobble up the sensationalism of Pundit #1 because it fits more comfortably with their own preconceived notions than the fact-based perspective of Pundit #2. So Pundit #1 is invited onto more panels where his opinions are shared with more people, giving him an ever-increasing air of legitimacy. After all, he wouldn't be on the news if he was just making all of this up, right?
Today's political figures are quickly catching onto this trend and capitalizing on it with a vengeance. The claims are getting bolder and wilder, erroneous statements are offered with increasing confidence and the level of fervor among the public is reaching an unnerving fever pitch. Seemingly decent, reasonable people are transformed into belligerent acolytes of the candidate they have chosen, fueled on by the rabid war cries of attention-hungry pundits willing to back the public's prejudices regardless of the cost. News coverage of candidates is playing like a higher-stakes version of Entertainment Tonight. Just as the actual films made by movie stars are ignored in favor of the gossip and behind-the-scenes drama, the actual policies of the politicians are ignored in favor of the useless name-calling, sensationalist hype and spectacle. We're being dragged into an ultraconservative fantasy world in which the timid, moderate, clunky, compromised health care legislation which was passed somehow passes for dangerous socialism and a suggestion that maybe we should require someone to learn how to use a gun before they're allowed to purchase one is dismissed as radical extremism. Progressive politics have been given an ugly stigma, and in most parts of the country it's impossible for a politician to declare their liberalism with half as much pride as a politician can declare their conservatism (Yes, yes, I can hear you now: "That's because liberals have nothing to be proud of!"). If that's the world people want to live in, so be it. But don't stand on the far right side of the room and try to convince me that it's the center.
Did you see the Chrysler ad featuring Clint Eastwood (one of Hollywood's most notable Republicans) which aired during the Superbowl? It's hardly the Gettysburg address, but I was kind of moved by it, because it was a simple, direct, non-partisan plea for all of us to band together and act like grown-ups. Here's what Clint gently growled:
"It's halftime. Both teams are in the locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It's halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they're hurting. And they're wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback. And we're all scared, because this isn't a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together; now Motor City is fighting again. I've seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when it seemed like we didn't understand each other. It seems like we've lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. But after all those trials, we rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that's what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can't find a way through, then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win? Detroit's showing us it can be done. And, what's true about them is true about all of us. This country can't be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it's halftime America. And our second half is about to begin."
Again, it's just a car commercial. But it was a welcome reminder of some important things, and its weight seemed amplified by the lack of substance in the programming which surrounded it.
The next day, Karl Rove went on Fox News to comment on the ad: "The leadership of auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage. It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are using tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Back at ya later
No comments:
Post a Comment