When Rep. Paul Ryan was nominated, I welcomed the choice because, even while I documented ways in which his numbers don't add up, and while we at CBPP documented his reverse Robin Hood'ism, he espouses a vision of government's role that is very different from my own as discussed here at this blog. As he says, this is the debate we need to have.
But I also worried, loudly, that we won't have that vital debate if we are not highly vigilant. Yes, we need to have this debate, but "... whether we actually have it will be up to the candidates, the media, the fact-checkers, and analysts like those of us at CBPP who try to break things down in ways they can be understood."
Following Ryan's acceptance speech last night, the fact checkers and many in the media have been working hard to correct the many falsehoods. The Plum Line blog at the WaPo, for instance, has been on that case, contributing their own analysis and collecting relevant links.
The fact checkers, including Politifact, Factcheck.org, and those Pinocchio fetishists at the WaPo have also been making great contributions. I have criticized these groups when they get stuff wrong and not been nearly supportive enough when they get it right, which is the vast majority of the time. My bad and I'll be sure to further amplify their worthy fact checks in areas of interest around here.
But what's got me very worried today is the blatant acceptance of post-truthiness that one feels creeping deeply into our national debate. Most -- not all -- of the news stories on the speeches from the convention -- and I'm sure this won't be limited to the Republicans -- focus on the emotional, the personal stories, the strategic (did the speech accomplish its goal...did is rally the base... did it appeal to [interest group]?), the political horse race.
And then there's this other section of the show or the newspaper-if you're lucky or interested in going there -- that asks... um... how much of what you just heard was true?
Think about this for a second. Just the fact that newspapers now need a fact-check section is itself evidence that we're deep into the post-truth era. There's the news... and then there's the question of how much of the news is true.
We need a debate about the role of government. It's not a simple debate, but neither is it rocket science. It has to do with how we provide income and health security for those past their working years, how we sustain a safety net for economically vulnerable families, how we offset market failures like the Great Recession, and how we regulate volatile sectors, like finance, to avoid the next bubble and bust.
There are distinct choices in how societies deal with these challenges, how they apportion risk, how they decide which of these functions are critical and how they pay their costs.
And today, with so much disinformation and post-truthiness, I'm having a hard time seeing how we will be able to make the right choices in a true democratic manner.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
Follow Jared Bernstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@econjared
Conservatives won't debate these issues because they do not think government has a role in providing social safety nets. As for economics, they believe the "free market" will take care of everything, which is just another way of saying "survival of the fittest" (the Libertarian creed).
I'm not a conservative, but my sense is that classical conservatives (not neo-cons or tea party) have historically been supportive of social programs. Maybe not to the same extent as democrats, but even George Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism."
When you get out of the mainstream and into the 20% of the GOP who vote regularly and are politically engaged at grassroots (white/elderly) is where I think we find the exteme position that government should not engage in helping the less fortunate. Ironic that the majority of these people have been at the public teat their entire lives in one form or another, just like the rest of us.
I hesitated to even reply to your comment because I realize I run the risk of quibbling. However, I thought it may be important to point out that I think the problem isn't so much conservatives (these days) as it is conservative extremists.
Cheers.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/083012-624188-so-called-fact-checks-disguise-media-liberal-agenda.htm?src=HPLNews
an obedience-oriented public school system and sales-oriented
entertainment to passively accept "information" is primed for gut
level, emotion based pandering for which facts are merely the
garnish, pushed aside like parsley atop the red meat of charged,
cynically crafted anecdotes.
There can be no (useful) debate when the audience doesn't know,
and the debators wilfully misstate the facts. There is no honest
broker who is universally recognized as such - or if they are, they
are lost in the tsunami of well funded lies and well paid liars.
American politics has moved into the dangerous territory of positions trumping facts. The GOP touts lowering taxes on the wealthy "job creators" despite reams of evidence clearly indicating that the wealthy do not create more jobs based upon lower tax rates. The GOP touts gay marriage as hurting traditional marriage despite the overwhelmingly obvious fact that one has nothing to do with the other. The GOP touts Obamacare as a socialist deficit-busting program destroying our liberty despite the facts that it isn't socialist, that it does reduces the deficit, and that it helps the insurance industry while also protecting average Americans. The GOP touts climate change as a left-wing farce, despite overwhelming evidence that climate change is real. The GOP touts history as malleable, preferring to whitewash our textbooks and eliminating truth about our past.
The GOP is all about blind faith to a world where straight white people reign supreme and everyone follows doctrine prescribed by the Bible. When you rely on the Bible and absolute principles to govern a secular democracy, you turn our country into a theocratic absolutist state. That is what the right wing Tea Party and modern GOP want to turn our country into. Let's hope enough Americans learn the facts before it's too late.
"GM plant’s last day finalized
By JIM LEUTE (Contact) Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009
JANESVILLE — General Motors will end medium-duty truck production in Janesville on April 23, four months to the day after the plant stopped building full-size sport utility vehicles.
About 100 employees associated with the line learned of the layoffs Wednesday.
April will mark the end of vehicle production at the Janesville plant that traces its roots to 1919 and the Samson Model M tractor. Chevrolet production started in Janesville in 1923."”
It was a planned plant closure. Obama had literally NOTHING to do with it. Once again, we need fact checkers.
This is the KEY statement of Mr. Berstein's article. The real issues are INTENTIONALLY convoluted so as to make this race about personalities, mud-slinging and clever quotes....Neither party has broken things down so that voters can actually understand. BOTH parties are in this together.
I think the reason so many newspapers now have 'fact-check' sections is that they want to present their positions as 'facts' rather than opinions. Reason had an excellent analysis of a recent fact free 'fact-check' on the new Obama movie. Basically, the 'fact-check' mainly criticized the movie on subjective grounds. That piece was particularly egregious, but I've seen it in many other fact-checks. (Notably, the Politifact claim that the 'Lie of the Year' was the claim that Obamacare was a takeover of the American health care system. That's Politifact's opinion; it's not a fact).
http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/dsouza-fact-check-light-on-facts