I guess it started with Reagan.
Affable, avuncular, radiating easy optimism. Dense thicket of black hair.
And pretty much a dolt.
Ol' Ronnie set the stage for the wave of irrational neanderthals and walleyed feebs who, able to regurgitate hallowed bygone maxims and ooze five-and-dime patriotism, are gaining favor among the current oxygen-deprived electorate.
For, after a brief step backward to arguably more complex carbohydrates (George H. W. and Bill C., more sophisticated but no less company men), once again the Republicans sought a replay of the Golden Gipper and played the putz card, throwing the callow, quasi-cowboy W. onto the table.
Sure enough, in spite of -- or because of -- his legendary mediocrity in all things (save frat parties, bong hits and doing a mean Gator) the country got Reagan 2.0: more affable, less articulate and even dimmer, if such was possible.
And it was. Gaffe after shrug after gaffe after stammer, the public (prodded by their bully-masters' skill with all things Southern Strategy) supported this obvious and sad boob. Having successfully duped the nation into sanctioning the greatest upper level heist ever seen (or mostly felt), the right wing knew a good thing when it saw it. From W. it was an easy throw of the lanyard into the chalk square in which Sarah Palin, the queen bee of vapidity, hopped on.
So now, with regulation regarded like something needing to be swatted with a newspaper, anyone regardless of experience or common sense, sociopolitically ignorant or downright suspicious of education and openly embracing of precepts that originated in the fecund minds of religious fanatics in the tenth century can run for national office and, gosh darn it, win.
No longer is experience required. Education is for saps and elitists. Dumb = real. Since the level of education in this country is way below that of a large number of other industrialized nations, it only makes sense that the fruits of such an education seek representation which reflects their own tastes. In the case of the Tea Party-backed candidates, one need only look to see that the taste leads back to some pretty rotten fruit (See what I did there?).
The hell of it is, the right knows exactly what it's doing. Their newly energized base couldn't be baser. When the right spent years sowing the seeds of distrust by courting religious radicals and the political fringe, along with purposely breaking the very machinery of government so that it could then blame those who still believed in it, the stage was set for the rise of the ridiculous radical right.
This is of course made possible by the steady diet of Dumb fed to the technology-addicted multitude, to whom "history" is two syllables too long and consuming is the imperative of every patriotic American. Without a clue, how can one ever question?
I guess it's true: Dumbo is indeed an elephant.
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@TheStevenWeber
It's simple, Steven: Everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated and just plain dumb. If these disagreeing, uneducated dummies somehow gain power, they're evil. You don't back up your claims about Ronald Reagan, because everyone just KNOWS he was an affable, dimwitted dolt. You point out gaffes by W. and Palin, and ignore the stupid things said by Joe Biden. (FDR calmed the country down after the '29 stock market crash with his fireside chats on TV.) Or Nancy Pelosi. (We had to pass the [health care] bill so the people could see what was in it.)
Here's the deal. America is a free country, meaning individuals are in control of their own lives. That means the economy. That means their health care choices - or non-choices. And so on. The people are dumb? Then I guess they'll just fail. But they'll fail through their own efforts, not the guaranteed-to-fail mandates of a statist government. You know, the Obama gang.
One person wrote "The free market has failed." Then we should all be slaves. Right? Although not with whips and chains - I save that for Tuesday nights at Walker Square in Milwaukee. But that's another subject.
Yes, things have changed, (Voila... a black prez, etc) , but there are still muchos black, latino kids still riding past white suburban schools to arrive at their black, latino school. that would be called "white flight" for lack of coded terminology. Not an issue I particularly wanted to discuss. But i digress.
Take a trip through this great country.....please. Many surprises might await you in the real world.
Imagine if magic was being performed on the national stage, only you didn't know it. The magician doesn't announce his role or what he's doing. In fact, most people don't even know he's there. He manipulates your perception of reality and you actually believe what you’re seeing is real! You’re an unwitting member of his audience. The magician is so smooth that the whole time he continually redirects the focus from himself and onto the members of his audience. You could even become a willing mark, a member of his “focus group.” He’ll find your emotional blind spots to use against you when conjuring his next illusion.
He knows the truth. Yet, he happily lies by omission, disregarding the facts he’s paid to conceal.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/04/lying-ultimate-manipulation-tactic/
He seduces his audience through his civil manners to formulate his “Words That Work” incantations, without concern for the victims of the misdeeds to which those words eventually lead.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/04/13/seduction-as-manipulation-tactic/
But who better to call out his sleight of hand than a couple of masters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
For all the power of his dark magic, he can never use it find his own emotional blind spot: his conscience.
- Tom
It's ethical to use facts and evidence to persuade and bring a person's perception of reality closer to the truth. However, if you knowingly use lies, minimization, exaggeration, denial, unfounded assertions, falsely associate unrelated frames, and other manipulation tactics to distort a person's perception away from reality, that's wrong and evil.
When Luntz calls it the “Democrat Party,” he does not argue with civility. He knows he's being disrespectful.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
When Luntz instructed the Bush administration in June 2004, “No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11,” he revealed his deliberate intent to mislead the American public and link the War in Iraq to 9/11. How many lives were lost through this false framing that deceived Americans into continuing support for a war of choice?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/frey.php?articleid=8011
Luntz's doublespeak prevents our country from having a well-informed citizenry, on which keeping our democratic republic depends.
http://blog.commonwealinstitute.org/2007/01/frank_luntz_words_that_work_1.html
How can his behavior be taken lightly?
- Tom
The GOP hit pay-dirt with Reagan. He was an awesome mouthpiece for them. He talked extensively about the good ol' days (which never existed) and how he was going to make it all better for everyone by keeping government out of people's lives. All the while, government under Reagan simply went more underground so citizens didn't notice most the going-ons.
So yes, W was a similar, if less intelligent, mouthpiece for the GOP. He had the extra benefit, in fact, of being 'average' and 'neighborly,' which many of us did recognize as actually 'vacuous' and 'stealthy dangerous.' A good choice for conservatives because his lack of intelligence made him unthreatening to so many insecure and under-educated Americans.
Steven is correct, the right-wing knows exactly what it's doing. It's a master at leveraging an age-old trick of despots and monarchies for centuries – keep most of the population fighting for survival and under-educated and they fall for just about anything. In this state they are usually emotional and that is an easy condition to manipulate your lies upon.
Here's the deal: Marxism doesn't work and it has been soundly rejected. Cry a river.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-08/opinion/17428849_1_aids-in-san-francisco-aids-research-education-cases
As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
there is an old jewish saying,"when life gives you AIDS, make lemonAIDS." - sarah silverman, old jew.
Of COURSE there's a streak of anti-intellectualism. The great thinkers of the current crop of repubs include college dropouts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And it goes back quite a ways--Nixon was always intimidated by JFK and his Harvard degree. I remember when Nixon nominated Harrold Carswell, a real mediocrity, to the Supreme court. U.S. Senator Roman Hruska (Republican, Nebraska) defended the choice, stating: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
Disparagement of knowledge is always the refuge of those whose ideas don't hold water.
- Terry Pratchett
Asa foreigner, I found American tolerance for-- and indeed celebration of-- mediocrity rather puzzling.
This extends from educaiton to art to film to food etc.
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley imagined that the working class was dumbed down by injecting alcohol into the fetus' food supply. We, as a nation, have proved that the alcohol is unnecessary.
Answer this...why are so many of these latter-day republicans
against all things "gummint?" And why are so many of them
running for office in that very same institution?
That pretty much nails it!
That, and the appearance of Pandaforum, in from
deep right field to attack the author, not the problem.
Reagan, portrayed as the "amiable dunce" simply turned around a nation in decline, started a recovery that lasted 25 plus years, ended the Cold War without firing a shot, and made us feel good again did all that by accident. Bush, thrust into a situration no one in their "right" mind would wish upon anyone, handled a nation devastated by 9/11 with dignity and grace.
Bill Buckley once said, "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." Washington and Hollywood have no shortage of arrogance and condescension, but common sense is nowhere to be found.
He quicjkly trippled the Debt, spending money on defense projects that created short term jobs and no weapon systems that worked.. I was there...
Russia was in such bad shape when he came into office that the ruble was not a tradeable world currency.. see thay had spent their wad on the military, just as we have continued to do... and today we are a debtor to Russia. He cut infrastructure s[pending t levles 1/5 that of our competitors..
Reagan statred with a 7% unemployment and while spending with abandon... it went to 10.4% before coming down and still ending much higher than under Clinton as his bubble like Bush's burst into massive unemployment again.
We had a stock market crash and the dereguation of S&Ls led to a 550 Billion bailout then ( larger in curent doillars than today). He trraded weapons to iran.
After his budget director quit claiming that us and the russians were in a race to bankruptcy and the russians won.
Eventhough he tripled the debt , devalued the dollar by 50% and endorsed massive outsuorcing along with doubling the size of Government, he increased taxes 4 times...and c reated in 8 years less priavte sector jobs than even Carter in 4 years.
Regards
You Reagan worshipers all want to give him endless credit for things, but you forget his true legacy. Reagan tripled the federal debt, a feat unsurpassed until your new wonderboy, W took the reins.
As for deficits, what Obama has done in his short time has been nothing short of reckless:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
The two highest annual deficits belong to the Administration of Barack Obama. Bush is in third place. However, the 2007 Federal Deficit (the last budget submitted by a Republican Congress) was LESS THAN JULY 2010's one month deficit. Reagan's deficits were a product of massive government spending. There is plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately, this massive spending has grown exponentially during the age of HOPE and CHANGE.
My fellow American, this is a very tenuous circumstance that will threaten the quality of life of all citizens of all political persuasions. We have someone who is either incapable of understanding the ramifications of his actions or that is the intent of his policies. Now is the time to unite and stop this for the sake of Americans living now and those who will inherit this mess.