Senator Lisa Murkowski Hits a Double – Rudeness AND Hypocrisy in One Press Release!
On occasion I have been known to write a letter to one of my congressional representatives. When I do, I try to make sure it’s thoughtful and makes my point. I never name call. I never insult. Most people realize that doing that just turns people off. It says “I don’t care if you listen to me, I’m just going to yell at you because I want to.” And I really do care, and I want to be heard so I do my best to make my point clearly without being insulting.
Every time I write Senator Lisa Murkowski, I get an email or a letter back from her office telling me she will “take my opinion into consideration.” Now, I know that this basically means she’s already made up her mind, and she’s not going to do what I want, but at least she takes the time to respond, and to do it politely. I feel reasonably sure that someone in her office has made a tick mark on a piece of paper and registered one opinion in my column. The senator doesn’t call me names, or act in a disrespectful way. I respect that. And when you have two people who respect each other, you end up with the aptly named condition called “mutual respect.” In a contentious world, it goes a long way.
I’ve met Lisa Murkowski in person. She’s very polite in person. I found her to be intelligent and likeable. I didn’t argue with her or call her names because I can disagree with someone without name-calling and rudeness.
Apparently Senator Murkowski saves her rudeness for her press releases, in which she has decided to jump on the Republican talking points bandwagon and refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” party. Republicans know that Democrats hate it when their party is called the “Democrat Party.” They know it full well, which is why they do it. And that says a lot.
Here’s a little background.
“Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party. The term has been used by some conservative commentators and some members of the Republican Party in speeches and press releases.
The word “Democrat” is not at all controversial, except when it is used as an adjective (as in “Democrat Party” or “Democrat Senator” or “Democrat idea”). In that case some Democratic Party leaders and non-partisan commentators have objected to the use as adjective. New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote:
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.”
In 1984, when a delegate of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change a platform amendment to read the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be “an insult to our Democratic friends.” The committee dropped the proposal. In August 2008, the Republican platform committee voted down a proposal to use the phrase “Democrat Party” in the 2008 platform, deciding to use the proper “Democratic Party”. “We probably should use what the actual name is,” said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel’s chairman. “At least in writing.”
Yes, by all means… only use the intentional insult when you’re speaking, not when you’re writing it down. How kind. But even that little bit of good manners is too much to ask from Senator Murkowski. Or should I just call her Murky, or Kow, or a Rethuglican, or a Repuke, or a Repug? I mean, since we’re using epithets and slurs, and since we’re looking for “handy way(s) to express contempt.”
Maybe some day Senator Murkowski will take her etiquette tips from Wikipedia, but until she advances to that level, here’s her latest press release:
Murkowski Blasts Democrat Proposal to Raise Debt Ceiling by $1.9 Trillion
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate this week may vote on a Democrat proposal to raise the federal debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Sen. Murkowski announced today that she will oppose the measure.
“Our nation’s credit card is beyond its limit. The budget deficit for the last fiscal year reached $1.4 trillion – roughly three times the previous single year record. Now, rather than move forward with fiscally responsible policies, the Democrat leadership has chosen to bring to the floor legislation that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to an astonishing $14.3 trillion. This would mark the fifth increase to the debt limit in the last 18 months and the third increase in less than one year.
“The current course is clearly unsustainable. If we do not address the fiscal crisis, we will be passing on to our children a weaker country than we inherited.”
Getting past the insult to one in five of her constituents, let’s look at the message itself – fiscal conservatism. A principled position, right? Here’s something to which the Senator can speak from the heart. It’s not just some kind of partisan political posturing. She has urged this kind of fiscal restraint from the previous administration too, because it isn’t just about throwing rocks at the other side, it really is about the issue. Right?
Think again.
Since taking office in 2002, Senator Murkowski has voted five times to increase the debt ceiling. She has voted for nearly $4 trillion in increases, raising the debt limit from $5.95 trillion when she first took office to $9.815 trillion in 2007.
June 11, 2002 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $450 Billion, from $5.95 Trillion to $6.4 Trillion
Congress passed S. 2578 and the President signed the bill into law on June 28, 2004 (P.L. 107-19, 116 Stat. 734).
May 23, 2003 – Murkowski Voted to Increase the Debt Limit by nearly $1 Trillion, from $6.4 Trillion to $7.384 Trillion
Congress passed H.J.Res. 51, a joint resolution to raise the statutory limit, and the President signed the bill into law on May 27, 2003 (P.L. 108-24, 117 Stat, 710).
November 17, 2004 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Raise the Debt Ceiling by $800 billion, from $7.384 trillion to $8.184 trillion.
After the 2004 elections, Senator Frist introduced S. 2986. The Senate approved the increase and the bill was signed by the President.
March 16, 2006 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $800 billion to $8.965 trillion.
The Senate passed H.J.Res. 47 and the President signed the bill.
September 17, 2007 – Murkowski Voted Yea to Increase the Debt Limit by $850 billion to $9.815 trillion.
H.J.Res. 43 was passed by the Senate and signed by the President.
Click for the $ figures for each piece of legislation (pages 9-14)
A twofer! Rudeness and hypocrisy in one little press release.
I know lots of Democrats who have voted for Lisa Murkowski in the past. The last time she got elected, she had pretty broad bipartisan support. Democrats considered her to be one of the more measured, moderate, centrist Republicans – kind of like Republicans used to be in the old days. My Democratic friends didn’t always agree with her, but they respected her. Not any more. But she obviously doesn’t care anyway.
for a moderate, murkowski seems to be pretty antagonistic toward efforts to address climate change; her expressed reasons are because she thinks it will “destroy” millions of jobs, or something such. Apparently she is not fully familiar with the likely results of unchecked climate change; and as for the destroying the economy idea, perhaps she is not familiar with, or has not read, this, or even considered the ideas herein.
AKM… we ALL love it when you do a Poll.
( You are famous for them )
Maybe you can post an ‘ Update ‘ at the bottom of your story where we can all vote on the 5 choices you provided…. or come up with a List by the other MudPups as write-ins.
With the 5 you have provided… My Vote is… Murky is a ” Repug “…
{ Oops… I used 2 of them there… my bad. Sorry ;-( }
Time to say….Feck off LISA
Lisa Murkowski, member of the Rethuglican Party would be appropriate in future writings!
This is plain and simple poor use of the English language – and thus, it is an insult to our ears and to our thoughts. Should we, therefore, describe a plan offered by a Republican as a “Republic idea” to ensure that we are on even ground?
Murkow should be ashamed of herself! But it seems that she is enjoying her notoriety these days with her support of various Republic ideas, also, too.
Do you ever wonder if these representatives actually remember what their position was in the past? Don’t they have several very well paid assistants or clerks to “google search” that knows how to look up their voting record? If not, we could loan them a couple High School students that would be willing to do research for minimal cost. How about some long term unemployed, they could research for several representatives!
Perhaps we should send them some links?
how about http://www.senate.gov whew, that was hard
Since it was a Republican, I believed Sessions, who said the Republican Party was the Taliban and would use Taliban tactics agains the citizens of the United States – I have no problem using the term RepoTaliban, as it is a tag that they have chosen.
Many of the Repocons, their term, are genetically or ideologically descended from the Nazi, therefore it is fair to call the Repocon party Nazi, and Nazicon. Armand Hammer had free access to the USSR during the Eisenhower administration, so calling Republicans Stalinists or commies lovers is also fair.
The Republican party has said they wish to destroy the elected POTUS, and they cheated Bush into office so ReThuglican is fair. Even Repodictator ship is fair since they want to rescind the amendment limiting the POTUS to two terms.
The Republicans have said they will oppose every thing the Dims do during Obama’s term in office so the Party of No is fair and applying the above Party of Nein and Neyt are as well.
They hope the legally elected POTUS fails by their acts, regardless of the harm done to the country so Anti-American is a name and an ideology that fits, by their own intentions.
Seems to me that in the name calling game a lot more sticks to them than to the Democrats. Unfortunately for the country spineless does stick to the dims.
Lisa Ann Murkowski, a.k.a Leased Murkyandhow.
Republican strategy for 2010:
1. When you can’t win with facts, call them names and make them mad.
2. Stick your tongue out for good measure.
3. When someone brings up something about you that you don’t want to hear, stick your fingers in your ears and say, “La, la, la, la, la…”
4. When you get caught doing something you shouldn’t have done, always point to someone on the other side and say, “But he/she did…………!”
5. If you get caught in a lie, tell them you never said that. If there’s tape, cry and change the subject or say that they didn’t understand what you said, even if they did.
VERY mature behavior. When my kindergarteners behave like that, they get a time out. Maybe it’s time to set up a little Time Out Chair in Congress for when our representatives start acting like five year olds. On second thought, we’d need a LOT more than one chair.
I didn’t realize until several months ago that “Democrat Party” had become pejorative. I, apparently quite erroneously, assumed it was simply another case of those challenged by English grammar. Similarly, I have become unflustered when I hear the popular term “e-mails” instead of “e-mail messages.” (Do you collect your “mails” from your USPS mailbox, or your “mail”)?
I’m with AKM: the name-calling from either side turns me off big time, and I wish it would stop being such a cool fad to do so. Keith Olbermann and many Huffington Post commentators are included in my disdain. If you believe BS tactics like this are necessary to draw attention to what may be thoughtful ideas and assessments, then I believe you are dumbing-down, insulting both your intended audience and yourself.
If a certain relative of mine refers to the “Rethugs” one more time I may just respond with “You talkin’ to me, you Democ Rat?” And I’m going to change my “Political Affiliation” on Facebook from “Democratic Party” to something else. I don’t much feel like I belong at a party right now.
These Republicans are so immature sounding, it’s hard to believe. I remember when they were in the majority- they consulted their Democratic friends about legislation—didn’t they? And I don’t remember-please, tell me if I’m wrong-any Democrats in congress calling names or trying to change the Republican name in the party platform. This is just too ridiculous to fathom. Maybe if they say it often enough, the usage will force a change in dictionaries. It could become an “alternate” spelling. ONLY if no one complains. Thanks for calling our attention to it.
So since it’s obvious that Lisa doesn’t care what you or anyone else thinks, it’s time to start banging on her REAL hard so it leaves a mark… She deserves everything that gets heaped on her now and in the future.
WOW! Now that’s subtlety! I never liked how she got her seat and I’ve never voted for her because I don’t agree with her politics, but I had come to feel that she is an intelligent, deliberative thinker. In other words, I never actively opposed her since she established herself as a decent representative of the state of Alaska. Not any more. She has really changed teams and thrown the whole game as far as I’m concerned. She’s no longer thinking an issue through, she’s just voting with the REPUGS – a term I am using for the FIRST time here. Is this what happens as you gain seniority? She’s taking on a Ted Stevens’like persona. I don’t like it, not one bit!
And AKM, kudos to you for ALWAYS remaining professional in your writing and your analysis and NEVER resorting to name calling. I can respect anyone – regardless of opinion – who stays within those parameters!
In the title it could have been wriiten off or explained away as a mistake, typo even. But having it bandied about in the body of the message proves that a member of her staff got off being snarky and thinking him or herself clever.
I truly think someone, or two or three will get reprimanded. As for our Senior Senator, I am disappointed she’s lowered herself to diminish my non-partisan but pro D standing as her constituent.
She’s lost my vote over this past year. I’ve met her socially, prior to her getting her Dad’s job, and she seemed intelligent and open minded. Her politics this past year make me think that she has sold out, and that she doesn’t care that everyone knows.
I’m with you on the hypocrisy, but I’ll be more sympathetic to the name-calling when I stop seeing “teabagger” so gleefully thrown around. Just sayin’.
I like:
Murky Kow,
fekkin’ A!
Now that’s just plain rude and uncalled for! Sounds like she’ following in her father’s footsteps. Pity. I thought for a while, she was a decent person. Fooled again.
I almost voted for her once. There’s one regret I don’t have now. I thought she was better than that, but she’s sold her soul for her DC life, and clout in the party. She should get an earful from us. She’s in it for her… Like father like daughter.
This is slightly off topic for this post perhaps but I just ran across it on daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/26/830683/-Alaskas-blatantly-corrupt-Republicans
I can’t confirm any of the allegations made, perhaps somone local can?
My experience has been Begich is even worse than Murkowski for constituent feedback.
And you know how to send a message to Lisa about that, right?
Run an electable Democrat against her, unite behind them and make sure they get elected.
Of course, this will be all the harder since the Corporations can spend an unlimited supply of money to get their puppet Lisa re-elected.
@15 lysistrata, I recall that “teabagger” is they name THEY came up with for themselves, being ignorant of its alternative meaning. I remember seeing a clip of one of the protesters carrying some actual tea bags and identifying herself as a “teabagger.” Of course, now that the slang meaning is widely known and they reject the moniker, it is a bit rude to continue using it, but to be fair, they are NOT an actual party with a real name, so it’s not exactly the same thing. And I haven’t heard any elected officials use the term at all.
Our elected officials, on BOTH sides, should be better than that.
Btw, love your handle, great play.
Lisa is showing us another side of her, one that should tell us all that we need to keep an eye on her and speak up when she is wrong, such as her insult with using the word Democrat in places where it should be Democratic.
I have been posting in various places my request for everyone to sign up as a “fan” of Sen. Lisa Murkowski on her Facebook page as a way to keep an eye on what she’s putting out, and then being able to post comments to counter her posts and those of her other fans. PLEASE everyone, go to your Facebook page and sign up to follow her posts. I’m a lonely progressive over there!
Why, oh why do the Republicans insist on such populist expressions of fiscal conservatism. Do any of them understand that the reason why the debt limit was increased so many times between 2002 and today is due to the 2001 Bush tax cuts, and the financing of two wars for which no appropriations were made. The deficit (deficit = monies due other people and entitlement promises made but not paid for) when Clinton left office was $2 trillion. The deficit when Bush left office was about $11 trillion. The tax cut was passed 240 – 154, with 211 Republicans and 211 mostly Southern Democrats voting for it. The fiscally responsible thing to do would have been to cut spending to match the revenue shortfall. Responsible, but politically not possible.
This is the issue Democrats should be calling out Republicans on.
Senator Murkowski should get a sense of the history of her own party and it’s fiscal conservatism before jumping into the name calling fray.
I am beginning to think that politics are like football. Just play dirty—take out the quarterback in order to win. Senators and Reps only care about protecting their job, or giving theirselves a raise. I hope our President gets tough in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night.
AKM, I would suggest that you copy and paste her press release into an email to her and add (in red) corrections, insertions, proofreading marks, and suggested alternative, polite text. I think that would be a proper rebuke for her. I would do it, but I don’t live in Alaska. They tend to ignore comments from citizens from other states.
I think it is important to let her know that she is representing Alaskans and that she has embarrassed you by her rude, hypocritical remarks.
Lacy Lady Says:
January 26th, 2010 at 6:19 PM
I am beginning to think that politics are like football. Just play dirty—take out the quarterback in order to win. Senators and Reps only care about protecting their job, or giving theirselves a raise. I hope our President gets tough in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night.
**************************
The President’s train left the station yesterday when he made another Republican speech about controlling spending during a depression. I don’t plan to listen to his lies tomorrow.
It’s so crowded under this bus.
As to AKM’s post … Lisa is just an extension of the general disregard for constitutionality in AK. Sad, but AK is on the leading edge of fascism in the US and Lisa is the prime spokesperson for the state.
teabaggers–they were the ones who chose that name, after all. I still get a good belly laugh remembering one night when Rachel M was doing a segment about them, and could barely control her laughter.
The folks (Flanagan and O’Keefe among them) who ran a phony sting on ACORN were arrested for trying to gain access to a telephone closet at a federal building. Jonathon Turley called them boneheads who tried to pull off one of the most boneheaded pranks possible.
Sooo… what were they up to besides no good?
On occasion I feel compelled to reply to one of those despicable “send this e- mail to everyone” horrors that uses “Democrat Party”. In my reply (short and to the point) I deliberately leave out the “i” in “Republican”. It is rude, true, but usually unnoticed and mildly entertaining.
I guess I should have been more emotive in my previous post, it makes allegations against Murkowski accepting illegal favors from real estate and loan interests. Please see above, I won’t copy it here again.
Sameold, although I can identify with your frustration and angst, do you really think jettisoning the life boats will keep us from drowning? If the neo-fascists regain any power beyond what they already have it just makes the fight that much harder. If you are too cynical to admit that the ideological divide between Bush and Obama is about the size of the Pacific ocean, at least have the wisdom to choose the lesser of two evils.
Chris @ 22 Very cogent point. If memory serves me Bush added more debt in his two terms than all the *combined* debt of all preceding administrations. I think that is true in adjusted for inflation dollars as well as relative dollars. Someone can check me on that. Another thing that gets past most people, the federal budget for the year past, 2009, upt to October was determined by the BUSH administration, not Obama. The $700 billion bailout for the banks and stock brokers was signed by BUSH. All that it accomplished was keeping the ‘too big to fail’ from failing, but the consequences of their failures and chicanery have been depressing the economy ever since.
Going back at last to the gist of the OP, the rhetorical tactics that the opposition uses are gradeschool level because that is the audience they are trying to influence, people who can vote with a gradeschool level of comprehension of reality. The fact that people who actually do know better what the reality is, but choose in their own interest to pander to the ignorant mob minority have to be held accountable. It seems, however, that accountability is ambiguously applied. The examples one could cite are too numerous to mention and too blatent to require pointing out. There were allusions in prior posts to the bullying and intimidation tactics and their similarity to past places and times in history. I think these comparisons are valid. Desperate people do desperate things. Millions of our fellow citizens are suffering. If one looks at the economic performance of the last decade it is clear that virtually all of us are suffering.
In the end we will win out, because it is the people who constitute the whole of society, its sinew and blood and spirit is entirely contained in us. If we fail to resist now, we will be forced to resist later, because greed and the love of power know no limits.
Most excellent post, Krubozumo Nyankoye.
Do you think Senator Murkowski remembers that she voted 5 times for something that she spoke out against today? Does she not have a laptop to keep track of what she stands for and how she votes? She must think not a person is paying attention. Guess what?????
I’m sure she is reminded now. Lol! Hypocrisy is an understatement here.
I think this “republic” senator has some explaining to do!
There have been changes in the Republican party that trouble me. Not to come off sounding like a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ which maybe I am in this case, but I got shivers when I first saw that the Republicans have turned the stars in their official logo upside down. The stars should be representative of the stars in out flag. A star can also be seen as a pentagram – point up meaning white magic, point down meaning satanic. If you look at the back cover of Going Rogue, you see Herself holding a book or notebook clearly using the satanic hand sign. No one holds a book like that naturally. AND, if you google satanic hand signs, you see photos of many of our well known leaders using the sign.
So what’s up?
I think there is something really chilling afoot, and it goes way deeper than partisan politics. I figure my job is to stay as conscious as possible, be aware, and do what I can where I can as consistently as possible.
leenie17 @ 8 ~ “When my kindergarteners behave like that, they get a time out. Maybe it’s time to set up a little Time Out Chair in Congress for when our representatives start acting like five year olds.”
““““““““““`
[sideways tangent-slash-riff off of leenie17s post.]
beth-spouse is retired US military; while in service, beth-spouse worked with –and was in charge of– literally, hundreds and hundreds of young men and women. beth-spouse led them all with distinction. The ‘key’ to beth-spouse’s success in their success(es)? Simple:
When ‘adults’ start acting “like children”, *stop* treating them like children.
This shift in attitude of beth-spouse towards them, consistently resulted in amazing changes in them. When they were given the consideration and respect ‘due’ “adults”, they understood they were *expected* to be *and* act as, “adults”. And they did!
When it comes to our [elected] representation in Congress, I fully sympathize with the notion: “Senator/Representative Blah D. Blah is acting like a spoiled brat and I’m miffed no end with the shenanigans; I’ve lost all respect for S/R Blah D. Blah”… but I have to wonder if ‘we’ are letting all of our S/R Blah D. Blahs know, in no uncertain terms, that they are adults, and, as such, we *expect* them to be *and* act *as* adults.
For way too long, I think, ‘we’ –collectively– have viewed our Senators/Representatives as a collection of incompetent, self-serving, windbag buffoons; we have treated them as jokes. They have, most admirably, lived up to our expectations of them.
All this by way of saying: I think ‘we’ [rightfully, in far too many cases, sadly] have for so long been disgusted by –to the point of disrespect of–numerous individual Senators/Representatives who have bumbled into our Congress, that we have developed a disrespect for the [Senate and/or House] office they hold. Unless –and until– ‘we’ start again respecting the office, ‘we’ will continue to be spectacularly disappointed with the caliber, capability, and accountability of the men and women who we bumble into those elected positions.
IF ‘we’ expect name-calling; petty spats; obstruction of plans, programs, and legislation that’ll benefit *all* Americans, that’s what we will deliver to Congress and that’s exactly what they’ll deliver [to us] in return. IF we accept them acting like “children,” if we don’t remind them of the office they hold and what the office *demands* of them, they’ll continue to treat their stint in office as playtime in their own private playground. [Read: continue to turn Congress into a gigantic sandbox.]
For as much as we grumble about what “they” are doing (or more correctly, not doing) in Congress, I think we are more than partly to blame for their behavior. As beth-spouse exampled in treating men and women in uniform, we’ve got to *stop* treating our Congress members as children; if we expect our Congress to act *as adults* on behalf of *ALL* “We the People,” we’ve simply got to. beth.
[Whew! End of rant; thanks for your patience while I got that off my chest. I'm taking deeeeeeep breath now. b.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-p-schneider/its-the-emotion-stupid_b_436348.html
“Neurological evidence suggests what we all know intuitively: that emotions drive political decisions. In his book The Political Brain, clinical psychologist Dr. Drew Weston proves scientifically that decision making, including political decision making, is an emotional — not a rational — process. Dr. Weston explored the consequences for political narratives, of this fact, only to be largely ignored by the Democratic Party. Further evidence coming out of Harvard and MIT (notably Dr. Rebecca Saxe’s lab) indicates that visual images also have the capacity to shape opinions, especially when accompanied by narrative content. That is why the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan did more to bring war to life than any number of books ever could.”
The whole thing’s a good read; I recommend it.
Isn’t this the “must pass” bill that she attached her anti-EPA business to? Why would she attach her own agends to it and then vote against it? Was that just a ploy to be sure that it wouldn’t pass?
Or am I crazy. Doesn’t make sense.
Also, I am sick and tired of hearing “fiscally conservative” while my tax dollars pay to kill other human beings. Just needed to say that.
I need to compile a list like this for my representatives who were in office during the Bush administration and deliver it personally to their offices.
@21 ChiCat
Not sure anybody knows who made it up, but Anderson Cooper made it famous.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/04/15/cnns-anderson-cooper-its-hard-talk-when-youre-tea-bagging
Nobody has a monopoly on assholery.
Part of the problem with dismissing all the “teabaggers” is, like you said, it’s not like it’s an organized political party or anything. There are more independents today than members of either political party. They have many different viewpoints. And lumping them all together as “teabaggers” is just a way of rejecting any opposition, regardless of the merits.
I dunno… it’s an honest oversight. Cut the Senator some slack.
I sometimes slip up myself and refer to “Republicans” as “F–king A–holes,” so a little understanding works both ways. Don’t mean to be rude or anything, it’s just a natural confusion.
lysistrata: Please keep commenting. I am interested in what you have to say.
I am making a sincere effort in the new year to desist from name calling.
Lisa, when will global warming melt that permafrown you always wear?
AKM — you’re forgetting the utterly critical cosmic fact that makes Murko’s previous votes to increase the Federal debt limit not only understandable but transcendentally pre-ordained: the President was a Republican (or, as I like to call them, a Repo).
@38 lysistrata — I do try (with indifferent results) to use the term “tea-partier”. However, it’s difficult to be linguistically sensitive when the iconic photos of folks — and I’d say the photos they themselves consider iconic — are of OWGs like me wearing fishing hats with teabags hung off the brim.
@34 beth — Thank you for a very interesting comment. It got me thinking, which is always a pleasure.
During my own non-career time in the military, I affected dozens rather than thousands, but I realized much the same thing. If I expected adult behavior (or to be more honest, allowed my NCOs to expect it), lots of adult behavior magically occurred.
This turned out to be just about the most important thing I knew during my next 35 years (and some hundreds of folks) in the semiconductor biz. The notion that “people are inherently perfectible” is sometimes dismissed as the “liberal fallacy”, and over the years I’ve gone from conviction to hope on that one. But I’ve seen nothing to shake my belief that “people want to act like adults”. Of course, there are exceptions, and some of them can be downright annoying, but for the vast majority: treat ‘em like adults, and they act that way. Applies to me too, of course.
I wonder if our gradually degenerating Federal governance is due to the fact that the US has gotten too big. Each Congressional district contains around 700,000 residents. That’s a huge number of people — a good sized city. How can any MC maintain meaningful personal contact with such a large constituency? Answer: they can’t. Instead, they rely on polls, and their local party organization, and lobbyists — who can afford to call on them, instead of vice versa. Some of them may have sufficiently extensive family-and-friends networks to give them another view into their constituency, but even in those cases it’s a single view.
And, unfortunately, the 400,000 or so voters in the district have plenty of problems of their own, and so don’t spend much time trying to figure out what they want their MC to do, or how well he/she is doing it.
Generally, every two years, most will vote based on (1) traditional ideological/partisan alignment; (2) candidates’ personal charm; (3) scandal, if any; (4) the economy; (5) TV advertising. The average MC can only affect (2) and (5).
You’ll notice that there is no (6): what the Congress critter actually did during the last term. If you don’t agree this is insignificant, ask yourself “What did my Congressperson do last term”. (Pelosi, Grayson, Kucenich constituents just hush).
So, the way the game is set up, they need to exude charm and run lots of ads. Ads need money, money comes from lobbyists. And what we end up with is, in fact, a game. Now, games are fun, and they are what adults do to relax. But they’re not what adults do when they’re being adult.
I’m afraid that our great expansion as a country has made constituencies so large that they can no longer be comprehended by their elected representatives. Thus, adult behavior (do what is best for my constituents and the nation as a whole) is not reinforced, and childish behavior (get re-elected because it’s cool to be in Congress, win points against the other party, get media attention, etc) prevails.
Sorry for rambling. I am pretty pessimistic. beth really made the point already, and much more briefly — the reason the House and Senate appear to be filled with squabbling children is that they are.
She’s hired some right wing wackos to work for her and write her memos. She seems to be veering right to suck up the space Palin vacated. Her online letter on her vote against Sotomayer was full of red meat for the wackos e.g East coast elite education is suddenly a negative.
i often find the hypocrisy of the repukes breathtaking. the kow is a good example.
Krubozumo Nyankoye @ 33:
Thanks for your comments. Another thing that gets by most people is that the wars were not part of any budget between 2002 and 2009. Instead the people in the Bush administration twice yearly put up special appropriation bills to fund the wars. Each bill appropriated somewhere between $300 to $600 million. By taking this approach, Bush avoided making the official budget deficit look larger. Per his budgets the deficits were “only” about $400 million.
The size of the budget deficit is the issue for our time. It will affect our lives over the long term far greater than terrorism ever could hope to. It will stunt economic growth and limit employment options for our children and probably our grandchildren. As we are seeing, it will affect choices about health care. It has direct consequences on our foreign policy options. The debt is a potential weapon in the hands of irrational governments who are not beholden to their constituencies.
The nation has faced a debt load like this in the past. After WWII the national debt stood at something like 125% of GDP (whereas today it is about GDP). The difference between then and now is that during the 50′s there were multiple opportunities for growth, i.e. game changing technologies, emerging foreign markets. Economic growth paid down the debt. Not so today, unless a durable way of growing our economy is discovered. That is unlikely to occur.
These teabaggers are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem. Somewhere Ronald Reagan must be smiling as these teabaggers are the fruit of the war on education he started 30 years ago.
“irrational governments who are not beholden to their constituencies”
uh…Chris…aren’t we pretty close to this ourselves?
I can’t bring myself to say we’ve already fallen into this category.
I do not know. When I read or hear “democrat party” or something like that I just assume the speaker or writer is illiterate. To be blunt it makes the person using that word sound grossly uneducated.
@ 46 strangelet:
Reading your post, I had one of those “slap my forehead” moments when another ‘piece of the puzzle’ falls into place and I’m able to reconcile/answer some of my many (many, many, many!) personal mind-stumpers by (finally?) applying one thing to another…
To whit: For years now, I’ve been utterly baffled by the proliferation of so-called “mega Churches”; I – being ‘old school’ – couldn’t, for the life of me, wrap my mind around the notion that people would willingly join a congregation sooooooo large, that in joining, they were fated to be nothing more than just an itty-bitty speck [of one] amongst all the other itty-bitty specks constituting the congregation ~ just another face in the indistinguishable crowd.
Back in “my day” (which, admittedly, was long, long ago), a house of worship’s congregation was composed of the folks in/from the neighborhood; the congregants were an extended family and all knew each other by name. Houses of worship were big enough to meet the spiritual needs of the members AND small enough that the all the congregants ‘knew’ each other. Within the congregation, there was the ‘understanding’ that: if a member was experiencing a difficulty, all members rallied to their comfort and aid. From the priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc., on down, everyone in the congregation was engaged and *involved* with each other — not in an intrusive sort of way, but in a ‘you’re an integral part of my family, and because you are part of my family, what joys you or pains you also joys or pains me,’ sort of way.
I appreciate that we’ve a growing population and that funds are short, but I can’t help but wondering if ‘we’ don’t mind being part of a ginormous house of worship’s congregation because we’ve become ‘accustomed’ to ‘accepting’ being a speck in a political constituency, or if it’s the other way around. Or, possibly, we ‘accept’ both because it’s easier to ‘go with the flow” (bumping into SPs infamous “dead fish” along the way, or not) than to do else-wise? How about when it comes to consolidated schools in towns, cities, and/or districts: are ‘we’ doing what is financially expedient, or what is most beneficial for/to the student…
I do believe I’m going to have to puzzle this out some more. A lot more. beth.
[Disclaimer: For mudpups who are members of any super-large congregation, I mean no disrespect for your choice of place and/or fellowship within which you practice your Faith.
Please accept the above ramblings as just the thoughts of one who realizes there are whole bunches of things in this world I need to need re-examine and re-evaluate as the years –and situations – continually change; one who’s still trying to figure things out and grow. b.]
Chris @49
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say, but I think that the matter of deficit spending is not quite so serious as you think. After 1945 the world was a different place and since then all of it has been betting on the US to manage to do the right thing, as I think it was Churchill said, after we have tried everything else.Incidentally I think you meant billions instead of millions in your comment.
Since my ability to post is precarious I have to be brief, I can’t elaborate all at once on any of the points that follow but I want to suggest them.
Financial industry reform should be simple, Banks should be required to return 2/3 of their profits to their depositors in interest on ;said deposits, over time this would enable us to finance our national debt ourselves and it would uplift the entire underclass, the 99% of the population that lives from paycheck to paycheck. IOW it would make sense to save.
Education is indeed the key to our future success but we need to be pragmatic. My vision is that the US could become a scientific society. Instead of making things we devote ourselves to understanding things and most importantly, just exactly how our complex world works.
I throw these ideas out for consideration, if anyone is interested in following up I will try to do so by writing comments off line.
Hi KN @ 53
Yes, I did mean billions, not millions. Good catch. Billions of dollars are used to measure the incompetence of our government. Millions of dollars are used to measure what lobbyists spend these days to buy off government.
I am still gravely concerned about our future. No job growth in 10 years. No wage increases in 10 years. Well paying middle management jobs being sent to low wage countries. Declining innovation. Declining enrollment in math and science programs. Overvalued housing assets. These are all long-term problems. I could go on, but it is too early here to start drinking.
You are correct, it should be quick to regulate the financial industry. Repeal Graham-Leach-Bliley and restore Glass-Stegal. Repeal the Credit Futures Modernization Act. Basically, repeal any piece of legislation that Phil Graham had a part of because it is more than likely tainted.
I’d prefer to see the free market mechanics regulate the banks. Having said that, there is no such thing as an unfettered, free market. Someone always get sc*ewed. Best we can do is create competitively fair markets by restricting certain anti-competitive activities and creating transparency. Obama got it right last night by providing mid-tier banks $30 billion. It should have been $300 billion. That money should foster a lot of quick innovation among smaller tier banks to take market share from the big banks. If any regulation is necessary, it should be to prevent the big banks from acquiring smaller banks to get bigger.