All RWers are not idiots - They are on the other side of the ideological

[Mass]

equation.

A lot of people are calling Brownback, Coburn, or Sessions idiots because they disagree with them.

I have to disagree with them. These people are not idiots. They are among the most articulate senators we have. They are just on the other side of the ideological agenda: THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD HELP POOR PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD DO ANYTHING.

I know it is not politically correct to say that there are ideologies and that people follow them, but this exists and we have to recognize that and stop calling people idiots because they follow another ideology. Proving this ideology is wrong would be a lot more productive and make more sense for those who are not politically enclined (whoever saw the debate between Carlson and Coburn should not be surprised that Coburn won the election - Carlson did not seem to know what he was talking about and why people should vote for him rather than the other one. He seemed ideologically on the same side as Coburn, just less articulate).

The debate is whether the government should reduce the deficit by increasing taxes on the richer and keeping the same level of services, reduce the deficit by cutting taxes AND servies, or let the deficit increase (either while maintaining the same level of services or simply by cutting taxes for the rich even more). This is the core of debates like the heathcare debate or the school debate, but we can continue to call those on the other side of the equation idiots or we can show they are wrong.

Just a long rant.

Edited to correct articulated to articulate.

[Webster Green]

1. "Articulated" means their joints are functioning properly...

They are still fucking idiots though.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Or "articulated lorries",

as in semi-trailor trucks (Brit. usage)! SG

[Skinner]

2. Can we still call Santorum an idiot?

:shrug:

[Mass]

3. Definitively!!

Allen too.

[Skinner]

4. Oh, good.

Phew!

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. Only if you call him a BIG idiot. He's special that way.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

36. Thank you because those of us in PA suffer shame whenever he opens his yap

He is a world class idiot!

[unblock]

5. except for one big problem

all congresscritters believe that the government should help when it suits them. the right constituency, the right time, the right event, etc.

republicans who say the government shouldn't help the poor don't view the poor as their constituency. they hide behind an ideology of rugged independence or whatever, but when a major campaign donor is in trouble, or when a natural disaster hits their district, suddenly they're all about federal aid.


at best, ideology is for the speechwriters and the think tanks and the strategists. actual congresscritters are too much about compromise and dealmaking and getting re-elected to completely adhere to a rigid philosophy.

[BurtWorm]

6. Coburn is an idiot.

I don't know about the other two.

[EFerrari]

7. No, they're idiots.

:)

If the state shouldn't do anything, then we don't need it and these guys are out of work.

They're idiots.

[slor]

9. You are an idiot if you believe in ideas...

that are contrary to the good of the world. I agree that one should not take the word "idiot" to mean that we can underestimate or doubt their abilities.

[TahitiNut]

33. Exactly. Their false beliefs make them idiots.

Zero-sum thinking in an interdependent world is suicidal. The posture that a government of the people should not also be for the people is both ethically bankrupt and self-destructive. An election strategy that both strives to disinform and disenfranchise is a symptom of a social pathology: political idiocy. There is no "win-lose" in an interdependent world - only "win-win" and "lose-lose."

[ProfessorGAC]

10. We Will Disagree

Those you mentioned are merely the least idiotic of the right. That doesn't make them non-idiots. They are just less obviously idiotic.

Anyone who thinks that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that societies should not organize formal systems to assure minimization of poverty, hungry and privation, and should not provide education and services to assure a learned citizenry, is an IDIOT!
The Professor

[Armstead]

19. A lot of conservatives recognize that

However they disagree on how best to accomplish those shared goals.

A lot of conservatives, for example, honestly see school vouchers as a way to support universal education by allowing more kids access to good private schools. They believe public education is failing at providing quality education.

Those of us on the liberal side would disagree by saying that the answer is not to take resources away from public schools, but to recommitt our resoures to improve public education.

The goals are not necessarily different, just the belief in how to accomplish them.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. You're Reinforcing My Point

The historical evidence is clear that public schools do not, due to the funding mechanism, fail to educate. So, if they wish to change the funding system, that's idiotic.

To fail to recognize the problem propertly, prior to proposing a solution is idiocy.
The Professor

[Armstead]

26. That's a seperate issue

The effectiveness of public education and how well it uses its' resources is a seperate issue that is largely subjectuive.

My own opinion is that a good teacher and/or a good school will provide a good education, and a bad one will provide a bad education.

But a lot of liberals accept the same premise as conservatives, that our current educational system fails too many kids. With that as a given premise, they differ on how best to corret that perceived problem.

Saying that people are idiots because they have different ideas about how to accomplish a goal does not help any real search for answers.

It also forces the political debate into false dichotomies. That's why liberalism and progressive politics have been failing politically. We have been losing because we help tpo force people to make a false choice, rather than looking at things in a more rational and solution oriented way.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Then We Will Disagree

IMO, it is blind idiocy to suggest that chaging the funding mechanism will alter the quality of education. There are many, many good, smart people who are very successful and have good educations based upon the funding mechanism as it exists. The problem is not the funding mechanism. Since there is a vast body of data to suggest it is not the problem, it is prima facie idiotic to pursue a solution that is in no way related to the crux of the problem.


The Professor

[Armstead]

43. Please see my next post down for a reply

[ProfessorGAC]

44. I Think It's A Difference In Terminology

I guess i'm suggesting that it's the philosophy that is idiotic. That doesn't mean the people have low IQ's but rather, that they are blindly supporting some idiotic notions. That also, does not mean that the ideas are any less idiotic.
The Professor

[Armstead]

48. Maybe "dumb" would be a better term

Just kidding.

I understand what you're saying, and agree with the premise. I just believe that we ought to accept that there are valid differences on both sides in terms of how they are dealt with in the public/political sphere.

It's just my nature, but my own instinct is to assume that nothing is either/or in life.

But I do make a distinction between honest and thinking conservatives and mindless freeper types. I make an exception for those. :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

35. Narrow elitism leads to feeble-mindedness.

The shallow gene pool of elitism has historically led to its demise - always preambled with mental disorders and pathologies. The human stew, unstirred and stratified, burns at the bottom and rots at the top.

Part of this feeble-mindedness is demonstrated in the faith-based reductionism of substituting the convenient myth of closed systems for the reality of open systems. Education is no exception. Vouchering is nothing more than a profit obsession - parasitism. If you like profit-motivated health care you'll love vouchered education. Burdening our most critical systems with the overheads of the totally non-productive extractors of vigorish is the tapeworm of economics.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. We Agree

The Professor

[Armstead]

42. I will agree with the premise -- but....

that does not mean that people who see it differently are automatically idiots.

I'm not arguing the merits of conservatism in this. Simply stating that in most situations NO single ideological principle is the sole answer. Most real solutions have elements of both the liberal/progressive and conservative ideologies within them.

Pure utopian ideologies always fail. Utopian state socialism fails and/or leads to totalitarianism. Pure utopian free market capitalism fails and leads to some ungoidly mix of jungle chaos and class based tyranny and a corporate state.

The real answer is finding and maintaiing the right balance between these competing drives. given that, there is always room for differences about how best to find that balance, or where it should exist. Calling peopoe whop differ "idiots" both underestiumates them and undermines us by forcing less partisan types to choose between false dichotomies.

[TahitiNut]

49. Any ideology that is ultimately self-destructive is idiocy.

To say there's idiocy on the far right is not to say no such idiocy exists on the far left where the sole distinction is "win-lose" vs. "lose-win" - both being based on the politics of scarcity. It's a politic that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: ever-increasing scarcity. The idiocy of the right is in buying into some notion that plantation economics benefits the slaves, i.e. "trickle-down." The idiocy of the extreme left (nowhere to be seen in the US today) is in assuming the custody of the 'common weal' is uncorruptable. Any surrender of custody is, in effect, a surrender of life itself.

IMHO, 'idiocy' is a good term for it since it describes those who, by virtue of their ideologies, demonstrate their incapacity for assuming responsibility for their own survival - particularly when such failure to survive assumes a global scope. Lemmings and cliffs. Followerism.

[Armstead]

50. I'll buy that -- Anyone who buys into any "all or nothing" philosophy

[Mandate My Ass]

11. Some are idiots, some are whores, most are both

or at least are doing their best to court the idiot vote. :shrug:

[BlueEyedSon]

12. the flavor of RW that you have described is NOT the guys in charge

and the fact that the "normal" RWers in congress continue to support the guys in the executive WHO HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AGENDA is mind-blowing.

Bushco sees government as a major component in a mechanism to gain, maintain & consolidate power, & enrich themselves.

[stanwyck]

52. Absolutely.

This is the crux of the matter. The true conservatives who abhor the out of control deficit and the intrusion of government into private lives...are bowing down to the fundamentalists in their party.
The extremists have hijacked the Republican Party. And the moderates are kowtowing to them instead of their own ideals.

[BlueEyedSon]

13. They are not idiots, they are CRIMINALS

[Armstead]

14. Good point -- I would raise one disagreement though

You are absolutely correct that people can be intelligent and well-intentioned and conservative.

In the best of all possible worlds, both conservatives and liberal/progressives would be intellectually honest, and recognize that the real answer is a mix of both ideological positions.

However, in the present situation, basic competance and intentions also factor in. Everything is going wrong, and the right wing is in control.

In light of that, I would hope that conservatives would at least question their own assumptions and would also question the basic competence and intentions of the leaders and extremist brand of CONservativism they are following.

[Lexingtonian]

15. I disagree.

'Ideology' is just the academic plural of 'idiot'.

[ktlyon]

25. I agree we should not call people names or insult them but

telling the truth is OK. When the leader of our country does stupid stuff like using the word crusade to send our troops off to fight in the Middle East he is foolish and if he didn't understand the ramifications he is uneducated. If he lies to the country about the reasons for war he becomes a criminal. We must be precise with words we use and take great care to get the facts right. They are pursuing an agenda that we don't agree with, one we believe is detrimental to our country. We believe we are right and they believe they are right. If we make good arguments and point out the facts clearly everybody will know we have an idiot for a President, but we should not call him one.

[depakid]

16. I'm sorry, but Coburn is more than just an idiot-

he's several bottles short of a six pack.

Have you heard some of the things that guy says? Never mind that he might be able to score 28 or 29 out of 30 on a mini-mental state exam, his beliefs and thought processes border on the delusional. They're not the product of a healthy mind, and that has very little to do with his repugnant ideology.

[MrPrax]

17. ideological agenda?

"THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD HELP POOR PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD DO ANYTHING."

Quite a few liberals think this as well--poverty is simply a 'lack of opportunity''lack of skills training' lack of middle class upbringing' and gov't should focus on private sector initiatives to correct this problem of 'poverty'--

I don't know of many liberals that begin their analysis with 'economic critique of capitalism' and then demand that the Government be an active participant in 'income redistribution' schemes that are OUTSIDE the parveau of a 'free economy'. Even a simple plan of economic redistribution like raising minimum wages or a universal health plan is--um--problematic to be kind.

In fact, it was Democrats that stuck upon the 'two year' limit for assistance...I mean if that is NOT a demonstration of the boundless faith in steady 'economic growth', then I don't know what would be...

[Mass]

20. I do not disagree with you - I just don't see DU rushing and calling them

idiots.

The healthcare issue and the lack of imagination the political class is showing to find a solution that could work is mindboggling.

[Lexingtonian]

38. ?

The healthcare issue and the lack of imagination the political class is showing to find a solution that could work is mindboggling.

Not true at all. Everyone who has seriously worked on that problem- and I spent a lot of years in healthcare- knows there is really only one workable economic solution in the long run. Basically, the German model.

The demographics of the Baby Boomer generation aging/die out/demand for medical services (2000-2030) happens to coincide with a massive infusion of new (i.e. very expensive) technology, and (exploiting the social conflicts of our times that prevent unity in economic interests, i.e. regulation and antitrust enforcement) cornered market economics for large sectors of the health care industry (e.g. pharma).

The problem is that the German model works very well for an equilibrium population with a stable economy and linear changes in medical services and technology costs. There is no systematic solution for a population with wild demographic swings and exponential demands for increases in services and an economy that is too unstable. That is why, at the moment, the patchwork system of the moment is the only viable plan- it's opportunistic about where it gets the money because whole economic sectors fail abruptly, the politically weakest groups get shafted on costs and services rendered because the system can only deliver so much. And most people intuit that a full, proper, and fair accounting of health care in a big picture means discovering social, political, technical, philosophical, and economic problems that are too large and divisive to be resolved in the present.

So everyone who understands or intuits how large the problem involved really is- the medical system is a picture of our society and its large scale virtues and miseries and problems (present and inherited) in a very material and objective form- comes to realize that all significant changes in it are governed by changes in the condition and politics of society at large. Given the proportion of the population and economy involved in it- many tens of millions of patients, millions of jobs, the gamut of profiteers to saints- it could hardly be otherwise.

[Armstead]

28. Apples and oranges

That's the crux of the problem.

There is a big difference between "centrism" which is really just a more socially liberal form of economic conservatism and "liberalism" which differs from conservatism in fundamental ways economically but still accepts capitalism as the basis of the economy.

As for the basic difference between liberalism and socialism, I see that more as a matter of degree than fundamental belief. A true liberal -- including a moderate one -- would agree with a socialist that the government must take an active role in the economy to restrain the abuses and excesses of "free markets" and to provide for the social needs and goals that capitralism cannot (or will not) meet.

But a liberal accepts the fact that the primary driver of the economty is capitalism.

Even Bernie Sanders -- a self-described socialist -- does not waste his time challenging the basic validity of capitalism. Instead, he focuses on how the current form of corporate oligarchy is wrong and hos perscriptions for fiing it are basically liberal capitalism.

[Warpy]

18. Yes, but some of them are idiots, demonstrably so

in the field they have chosen.

They also seem utterly incapable of thinking that opposing ideology through to its logical conclusion, preferring to fantasize about a country full of people who are as utterly idle as they fancy the jet set rich to be, when the truth is that most people will do something constructive to avoid going stark raving crazy. They just won't do it at the direction of somebody else and for the sole benefit of somebody else.

This inability to see their own heartless ideology through and to consult history for examples of what happened when their ideology reigned supreme is what makes them seem like idiots, and in that sense, they are. This ability to fantasize about people they know nothing about and to accept incorrect assumptions (the poor are just lazy) as absolute fact are other examples of a very real form of idiocy, the idiocy of intellectual laziness.

Calling the extreme right idiots is just shorthand for the above.

[Skidmore]

21. How many of the people who they represent? & endorse that ideology

are really wealthy enough to be impacted by it? How willing are these Senators to buy & help sell the lies of this that perpetuate this ideology? This is not a debate any longer--it hurts many more in the nation than it helps. In fact, these men have endorsed the freewheeling, freetrading policies in conjuction with handing the keys to the kingdom to the finance industry that is bankrupting America. During Reagan's glowy American morning, they were part of the PR campaign that sold the public the idea that everyone could live the lifestyles of the rich and famous. They are beyond idiots--they are destructive.

[Bandit]

23. When an ideology is idiotic then it's followers are idiots

When something has been demonstrated time and time again that it doesn't work and yet people keep insisting it does, they are idiots. Or insane which might even be closer to the truth.. Abstinence for instance. All studies show it is an abysmal failure but they keep insisting it works and is the only thing that does work. Also that creationism is true science. Tax cuts for the wealthy benefit all. Yahoo and Santa Claus is a Republican.. Honest...

[Mass]

31. They would be idiots if they believed that. They may be dishonest

but they are certainly not idiots.

What you quote are just issues that hide the true issues: protecting the rich's privileges.

It works every time. What did you hear about during the Alito and the Roberts hearings: abortion and NSA hearings (both important, I agree). What did you hear about during the port hearing (Arabs taking the security of our ports). In both cases, the big absent was to whom this benefited: big business and big companies. Each time, the question is barely asked.

So, no, they are not idiots, on the contrary. They know how to push activists buttons so that the big issue is not even asked. And we let them fool us every time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. People don't vote for ideologies. "All politics is local."

In fact, a good portion of the populace don't vote at all. Politicians play on people's fears, not their aspirations.

Identify an enemy, or enemies, wave the flag, and promise "security" and the people will vote for you. Until, the politicians they voted for instill the policies and the bills come due in bodies or money.

Most people don't give a rip about such things as the "free market" or "voting rights" or "democracy" or "free speech" or any other thing that doesn't affect them personally.

Promise them "security" and give them bread and circuses, or pizza and the SuperDuperBowl, while scaring the hell out of them with nasty bogeymen, and that's all they need to vote accordingly.

It's worked for politicians of all stripes since the Pharoahs scared the Egytians with the Hittites, or Nubians and Rome "saved" civilization from the barbarians.

The truth is, that if this country were "conquered" by one of it's many "enemies", the vast majority would adjust to the new bosses and go along to get along.

[EVDebs]

29. To answer the question "Am I my brother's keeper ?" R's say HELL NO

That is the basis of your posting. In a court of law, a moral imperative is still unenforcable. You can't make someone do the right thing, you can only HOPE to pursuade them to. Lead these fools to water ... and they'll laugh at you.

[reichstag911]

30. Those of us in the reality-based world...

...do not need to prove their ideologies wrong; from a results-oriented perspective, they are manifestly wrong. What we need are independent mainstream media (read: TV) to report on just how bad things are in the world at this juncture, and how much of that deterioration has to do with the absolute fucking idiots running the show.

PS You really must learn the difference between articulate and articulated.

[ret5hd]

45. just because one's jaw is articulated does not make one articulate.

[Cleita]

32. Anyone who thinks the poor shouldn't be helped so that they

or at least their children can move upwardly into the middle class, are at the very least mentally lazy if not slow. Thinking one's way through the problem, finally even the most selfish of libertarians have to come to these conclusions.

The societal ills that begin with the poor have a way of spreading into the middle class and the rich. Inadequate nutrition, poor shelter, clothing and lack of access to health care leads to diseases like tuberculosis, for instance, which spread to the more affluent as well. Disease is an equal opportunity affliction.

Lack of education and opportunity lead to crimes and drug abuse. Of course the criminals prey on anyone and drug addiction spreads to the affluent from ghettoes and inner city neighborhoods.

Finally, the larger the population is that has spending money in their purses, the more they buy and the richer the corporations become that they do business with. Our booming economy during the Clinton administration was a result of policies that he put in place that lifted the poor into a better economic position with the end result that the rich got richer.

So you don't even have to be a bleeding heart liberal to realize that those policies that benefit everyone and the environment makes life better for everyone, not just those who can afford it. It's really a no brainer.

[LiberalEconomist]

34. They may not be idiots but they are....

FUCKING EVIL!!!!

[noonwitch]

37. I know what you are saying

Pat Buchanan for example. I would never say he (or Bay, for that matter) is stupid. He's wrong, but not stupid.

Buckley is a conservative I always respected, because he thinks every issue out for itself and doesn't come up with an opinion just because it's the party line. FOX commentators like Hannity could learn a lot from him.

O'Reilly and Hannity are just plain idiots. It has nothing to do with their ideology, but everything to do with their intellects. Smart people don't have to shout down opponents or cut off their mikes.

[rman]

41. So basically you're debunking the incompetence theory.

If so, i agree.

Why have a govt./state at all if it's not going to do anything?
All that's left is self-enrichment of those who govern (and their buddies of course).

I agree they are not idiots or incompetent; they are malicious.

[Ksec]

46. I just put you on my ignore list, you idiot.

Kidding .

But seriously, is there any hard proof that lowering tax rates actually boosts money comin in? I mean if you arent paying any taxes, how can that boost incoming? The new people added arent paying taxes either.

[Yollam]

47. The ones who are not idiots are just evil.

Anyone who can live in this society and not see that everyone in it is interdependent on one another, and that there is no excuse for hungry children or people who work full-time being unable to afford decent housing and health care is either stupid or evil. Saying that their ideology is different is just a way of prettifying their true nature, which is pure, unadulterated greed and selfishness.

[OneBlueSky]

51. ok, they're not idiots . . . but they're sure as hell hypocrites . . . n/t

.

[msgadget]

53. How 'bout immoral, wrongheaded, selfish, narrow minded

Southern Strategists instead?

[lonestarnot]

54. cigarsmok'n stink stacks who prefer to pillage the coffers rather

than work for a living, then blame the victims they stole from so they can take that golf trip.