by Paul Rosenberg, Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 04:31:31 PM EDT
Cross-posted from Patterns That Connect
Civil Rights & The Historical Birth of Wedge Issues
Preface: In Part 2 [MyDD], I looked in detail at the spending issues, which are the bedrock core of New Deal liberalism, and the foundation--still--of American liberalism. Next I will turn to look at social wedge issues, and find that there, too, there is more agreement than disagreement between liberals and conservatives. But first I want to establish an historical context--with statistics!--for understanding wedge issues. And that context is the backlash against civil rights. That is what inititially drove social conservatives out of the Democratic Party, and not any of the other wedge issue that followed. Their role as motivating issues was entirely secondary.
[See also: Part 1 | MyDD
by Paul Rosenberg, Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 08:41:16 PM EDT
Patterns That Connect
In Part 1 of this series I laid out the big picture argument:
(1) It's not liberals, but ultra-conservative movement conservatives who are far outside America's mainstream, based on data from the General Social Survey.
(2) This data shows that liberals and conservatives have significantly more overlap than disagreement across a range of controversial social issues, as well as national spending priorities.
(3) On the other hand, those wanting to downsize the welfare state represent only a small minority-even among self-described conservatives.
In this diary, I'm going to take a closer look at the national spending data. What we'll find is incredibly robust support for big government--despite how people may react to that term. Demonization can only take you so far. Indeed, we find that the welfare state is more popular than bare bones of the night watchman state that conservative ideology endorses.
by Paul Rosenberg, Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:45:09 PM EDT
Crossposted from Patterns That Connect
It's not liberals, but ultra-conservative movement conservatives who are far outside America's mainstream. And I've got the figures to prove it. In fact, liberals and regular conservatives agree far more than they disagree. The ultra-conservatives are odd-man out, and their constant demonization of liberals is a highly effective form of distraction that's absolutely crucial to the success of their project, which has virtually no mainstream support. This argument is consistent with, but goes far beyond, recent criticisms of neo-conservatives, including John Dean's just-published book, <u>Conservatives Without Conscience</u>.
With Israel's airstrike killing 4 UN observers, we once again see evidence of the right wing's glee over the death of those it hates, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. (After all, what do they know of these four people who died?)
by Paul Rosenberg, Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 10:22:08 AM EDT
Cross-posted From Patterns That Connect
People often seem to criticize George Lakoff based on their own peculiar misreadings of him. And it's happened again over at Talk Left, in a guess commentary by Big Tent Democrat, "What Lakoff and Obama Do Not Understand" [Disclaimer: I would much rather be writing about what Obama does and does not understand, but that will have to wait.] Curiously, Matt Stoller over at MyDD, referred to this as George Lakoff Gutted, but it's more like a fingernail clipping... that failed.
This is a very rambling, rather tangled post, that seems to have two fundamental misreadings of Lakoff at its core:
(1) It misunderstands Lakoff's criticism of issue-based attempts to target voters. Lakoff's big picture criticism is that it misunderstands how most people think about politics. His little picture criticism is directed specifically at the laundry-list approach to trying win over swing voters. Big Tent Democrat misconstrues it as Lakoff ignoring single-issue voters.
(2) It misunderstands why Lakoff talks about talking to conservatives. Lakoff does so primarily because his theory explains two coherent political frameworks, liberal and conservative. There is no coherent moderate framework. However, moderates employ both liberal and conservative frameworks. Thus, speaking to and countering conservative influences is a way to reach both conservatives and moderates. Big Tent Democrat mistakenly thinks that Lakoff is ignoring moderates in favor of conservatives.
A deeper look at these misunderstandings, and more, on the flip.
by Paul Rosenberg, Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:42:55 PM EDT
Colin McEnroe writes:
For Joe Lieberman, the nightmare is showing up for a debate and finding out that Ned Lamont will be replaced by Ralph Nader. Nader is like kryptonite for Joe.
Kryptonite for Joe?
But that means Lieberman is Superman!
We were wrong!
Liebermanlives was right!!!
by Paul Rosenberg, Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 12:31:38 PM EDT
Repeating an analysis begun in early April and continued in early May, a rough comparison of polls by month shows the same long-term trend observed before--the Dem's lead over Reps in generic congressional polls lags other indicators of the public mood--but a sharp difference in the monthly change, where the same disconnect was seen, but in the opposite direction: the GOP improved its still miserable showings on all three other indicators--presidential approval, congressional approval and direction of the country--while dropping a point on the generic ballot:
(Figures may not add up, due to rounding.)
For a discussion of what it all means--including a closer look as the "Bush Bounce" visible in the table above--join me on the flip.
by Paul Rosenberg, Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:32:26 PM EDT
Republished from Random Lengths News.
"Legally, there are no significant differences between the investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both involved persons in authority who used half-truths and recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted them."
-Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega
With little fanfare, polls over the past year have found support for censuring or impeaching President Bush for various offenses ranging as high as the 40s to the low 50s--despite a virtual media blackout, leaving most Americans woefully ignorant of the scope of lawbreaking involved. Yet, the only official investigation concluded, "These charges appear to be more serious than the articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 against then President Nixon".
by Paul Rosenberg, Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 01:32:43 PM EDT
From the diaries--Chris
Repeating an analysis from last month, A rough comparison of polls by month shows that the Dem's lead over Reps in generic congressional polls is lagging the changes in other indicators of the public mood. In fact, the Dem;s lead is now no different than it was last September, while the public mood has soured instensely:
Discussion on the flip.
by Paul Rosenberg, Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:57:55 PM EDT
Marcy Winograd has done it again. Another lopsided endorsement from a local Democratic club, this time 54 to 19 from the powerhouse West Los Angeles ("Westside") Democratic Club.
Maybe Hamran thought this would stop, if she stopped sending surrogates, and actually showed up herself. Maybe Harman thought this would stop if she reinvented herself as a Bush critic. Maybe Harman thought this would stop, after she used the insiders privilege to gain the state party endorsement at the state convention. But it hasn't turned out that way, as club after club has continued endorsing Winograd. The importance of this development is huge, and goes far beyond this single race, important as it is. It's about challenging the very nature of the top-down power structures in the party. And, of course, no one is more aware of this than Marcy Winograd herself. It's not just her race. It's our race.
Campaign press release and Winograd's statement on the flip.
by Paul Rosenberg, Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:53:45 PM EDT
The NSA eavesdropping scandal, at its core, is not an eavesdropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal, and it is unlike anything this country has confronted before.
--Glenn Greenwald, How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok
Cross-posted From My Left Wing
Monday is the publication date for How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok. I've written a review for Random Lengths News, due to run in our next issue. But here I offer something different, written with this particular audience in mind, an extended review, with lots of quotes to tantalize, and more opinions than I normally offer in a review. All you have to do is... JUMP!