Left, Wrong and Center

As a loyal listener to KCRW's "Left, Right and Center" (Fridays at 2:30 PM PST), one of the few forums for reasonable and energetic political debate, I have always enjoyed its spirited and stalwart cast of silver-tongued commentators: the occasionally irascible but scrupulously centric whiz of a host Matt Miller, the canny Arianna Huffington and the passionate Robert Scheer. Listening to their weekly analysis of the week's events I am assured of a frequently electrifying, always edifying experience, free from partisan histrionics and trite talking points.

But mostly, I look forward to conservative commentator Tony Blankley's articulate expressions on all issues which circulate through the perpetually running news cycle. His erudition and humor make his positions, pretty much all of which I dare say most liberals disagree with, palatable alternatives to the psychotic spew which passes for political dialogue of late.

But in this past Friday's installment, Tony (I like to think I am on a first name basis with the man, since I welcome him into my dank inner sanctum every week) informed us that, in his opinion, the entire global warming issue is at best a canard and any actions taken toward the alleviation of said issue, whether it is actual or merely a nefarious, liberal concoction, would lead the world to economic ruin.

This, to me, was a revelation on par with learning Oliver Wendell Holmes's views on eugenics (he was for it).

The sound of bubbles bursting among Left, Right and Center's loyal listenership must have sounded like Chinese New Year.

Huh? Really? Plus, Tony said it with such fed-up finality, it almost seemed like he could no longer be burdened by the process of empirical thought imposed on him by the show's format; that he had thrown all his erudition and education away for the sake of his chosen ideology.

But more than my own sense of disappointment, it points to what I think is at the core of the rapidly spreading division in the body politic: the fungibility of facts and the emergence of a veritable alternate reality based solely on the preservation of one's ideology.

Reeling from its loss to Obama, the Republican/Conservative world has pretty much detached from the Union and aggressively declared independence from even its own historical devotion to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Seeing the effect its zombie infantry of birthers, deathers, and other hurlers of distraction grenades have had upon the country, the right wing has said "fuck it" to a world in which it has to fight too damn hard to survive, let alone thrive. It's getting several steps closer to operating out of a David Koresh-like compound, daring anyone to pry the weapons of mossy distraction from their cold dead hands.

What this does is nullify any attempt to achieve a workable parity and keep the United States and its principles intact and functioning. And it reaches deep into the psyche of a conservative as embodied by Blankley and all the other high profile mouthpieces who speak on behalf of the dwindling and cornered herd. It is a nuclear option in the form of obstruction and denial.

As when I first learned about Glenn Beck's tragic upbringing and felt real sympathy for this person who endured so much tribulation (isn't that just like a spineless liberal fascist socialist pansy? To give a shit?), I can understand the pull toward extreme solutions to problems which seem insurmountable.

The election of Barack Obama must have amounted to such a trauma, the final straw for the right wing Conservative Republicans who have thrown in with and allowed wackos to define their once proud party. They have left flaming bags of dog crap on the country's collective doorstep, clearly taking stances which can only result in either their expulsion or secession. They are daring the country as the neo-cons dared the world.

It's beyond merely being sore losers. It is a primal survival mechanism kicking in with tragic ferocity. It's having a once formidable but now insane uncle, turning violent at the family picnic, spewing masticated egg salad and madness, frightening the children and endangering everyone.

In the case of Tony Blankley's assertions that global warming is sham science, preferring to ignore facts which point to certain inevitabilities is, like much of what has been expressed from the current Conservative perspective, short-sighted and desperate. And that's a real shame.

And frankly, hearing him spout such cant is causing me to experience my own trauma which will, I fear, inevitably lead me to behave in a similarly antisocial manner.

In fact, I am suddenly feeling the urge to denounce, oh, the law of gravity as a liberal hoax. I believe there is a pernicious "gravity lobby" which seeks to deprive patriotic Americans of their right to hover and wobble anywhere from a few inches to several yards above their God-given lawns.

And if we are bound by such a thing as "gravity," how then would we ever reach "Heaven"? See where I'm going with this?

 

 

Comments

[ThePeacemakers]

Need a four party system.
1) In lieu of campaign finance reform, this would make the price outrageous for corps trying to buy their legislation. Let em, pay and pay and pay. Try covering the bets on four sides of a debate !
2) Need to start now with a no incumbent left standing movement. Really, not re-electing these paid off folks is the first step toward a sane system.

[Doug1000X1]

He's saying that putting money into solving such a big problem seem like wasting money.

[Doug1000X1]

I found an example where money put into a system to reduce emmissions wasn't a wasted:
In July 1998, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Delhi government to implement CNG or LPG (Autogas) fuel for all autos and for the entire bus fleet in and around the city. Delhi's air quality has improved with the switch to CNG, important in a city where people commonly wear masks for protection against smog.

[neoprimordial]

The increase in selective reality is indeed a troubling trend, Mr. Weber, but I hope you don't lose your sense of humor in it all. But is Mr. Blankley's position selective reality, co-opted, or simple sincerity? It seems fairly clear that in the case of the Republican Party, there are a lot of folks there who simply cannot accept Barack Obama as president, and they indulge themselves in a selective reality where he is illegitimate or incompetent. They deserve our sympathies for their difficulties.

Then there's the behavior of the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs. I enjoy ignoring them, so I'm guessing that Glenn is probably in the selective reality camp, but Rush I'd say is actually sincere with pretensions to selective reality. Considering Bill O'Reilly, I'd say he's of the co-opted variety. I don't think he cares about any ideology or reality if it doesn't personally benefit him. It's about the money, prestige, influence, and image with him, imho.

So where does Mr. Blankley place? I'd say that for the most part he's sincere. He really believes what he's saying, but I also feel there's a hint of the co-opted with him. I'm thinking he's not out of touch with reality, despite his global warming stance. I think it's a question of what it is exactly that he can't accept about it. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand what's going on, despite his erudition and grasp of issues?

[JazzPuff]

I'm simply baffled by these people that don't believe what is happening. When our oceans are acidifying and killing itself, basically dying off...unab­le to support verging life below.
Moving upward not including Heaven, areas like the Antarctica where blue ice is vanishing at a rate faster
than replenishi­ng...melti­ng, unable to maintain itself in it's own environment above because the air is to warm. And last but not least Heaven, if I followed his line of thinking, based on what he is saying...I can't see it so I don't believe it....

[pizzmoe]

Very well said, Mr. Weber. I too heard that broadcast, and as much as I disagree with Tony Blankley about 99.9% of the time, this one was a true jaw dropper.

[overd0g1]

"Global warming" for "liberals" is the same as abortion to religious conservatives: It is revealed wisdom, and no further thought is permitted, just action.

[Social Construct]

Maybe, except global warming could very well end up aborting us all. Just sayin' ....

[TRex86]

Dog, I think you cheapen both issues. While a supporter of "choice," I have certainly been able to make common cause with sane and rational abortion foes without being at each others' throats. As opposed to Trent Franks most religious conservatives have the capacity for rational thought and accept a pluralistic society. What is in common with climate change is that abortion was a clever wedge issue to sever Catholic Democrats from the party. It worked well for a while--until a new generation of proto-liberal Catholics emerged.
Global warming shouldn't be a right/left ideological question, yet it too has become a wedge issue between ideological blocs. It's really a science problem of climate geology: can we incinerate 100 million years worth of carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere without overwhelming the systems that stabilize CO2 in the environment? Many clues suggest that subtler fluctuations in "greenhouse gasses" have modulated the cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years. What we're seeing now isn't so subtle. More importantly, can we afford to wait until there is irrefutable proof (i.e., the worst has already happened)? Should prudence be sacrificed for ideology. What harm is there in transitioning to economies that aren't dependent on burning stuff?

[Economike]

Fanned

[Wendy Johnson]

Let's say for argument you're right, and climate change is going to prove somewhere down the line, to be no more valid than, say, the personhood of a fertilized egg, and there we were, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for all those years before we found out. So what? Fossil fuel supplies are limited, even if we're wrong we come out ahead, because we make the supplies last longer.

On the other hand, if we're right, but we ignore the whole issue waiting for final proof... Let's just say I don't want to take that chance with the world my kids are going to have to live in.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

I never cease to be astounded, Steven, whether an individual's choosing to believe man is causing at least some of this climate change or not, that for some it pushes hysteria panic buttons to even talk about alternative energy sources that pollute less. It's actually good for OUR society and economy to collectively invest in creative and innovative ideas for a cleaner, more stable, future for OUR grandchildren. Yet, it inevitably sends the absolutists bs-crazy to mention alternatives to carbon-based fuels.

I ALSO suspect those that deny climate science have similar feelings about geology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology and any number of other 'ologies' that might interfere with their - 'faith'.

[doratocerone]

I don't think anyone on the right opposes the notion of pursuing alternative energy sources that are cleaner and more efficient. They do oppose two things: 1) The government promoting new energy sources by imposing artificial financial burdens on current energy sources, and 2) the government directly funding new energy sources.

So it's not that it shouldn't be done, it's that the government shouldn't do it. And before you ask, "If the government doesn't do it, who will?" I'll tell you. It will be the same kinds of people who invented bicycles, cars, computers, light bulbs, air conditioning, refrigerators, hydro-electric dams, HDTVs, and a host of other brilliant innovations. There was no government program to fund the development of automobiles, and there was no cap-and-trade on bicycle usage to promote a faster means of transportation.

Every single one of us already has an incentive to use energy more efficiently: it lowers the electric bill. We don't need congress passing laws about light bulb efficiency. If I save money by buying compact fluorescents, then I will buy them. If someone invents a more efficient energy source, he will be rich. All we need the government to do is stay out of the way and let us innovate.

[salvesons]

When did the gov "get in the way" of computers, fridges, etc? Only right wingers do that for the sake of oil cos and Jesus-- banning stem cells and denying the obvious reality that the earth is hotter. The Bushies were disasterously anti-science with no respect for innovation unless it paid them well. Liberals use tax money to clean up the messess Republicans make. (Or would you rather see unemployment at15%)? Oh, yes, when gov hires and pays people it's terrible, let them starve and die in the street without healthcare. Lovely. Liberals do what anyone else in the private markets may also do... help provide for the "general welfare" by HIRING people formerly in the private sector to help speed up the DEVELOPMENT ONGOING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. They are not in anyone's way now, either, the way the right wing has been. What a straw man you've built.
Government (we, the people) has been helping the development of tech for a long time, from defense innovations to subsidies to providing social order, and they uphold the laws so that the pursuit of happiness doesn't overstep its bounds and harm others. I don't see what's so bad. That you want to blame govt for everything and not give credit where it is due is just more right wing pablum. Subsidy doesn't mean stifled innovation elsewhere. Public and private colleges are a good example of that. Go put that in your little innovation pipe and smoke it.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

Another excellent assessment of the continuing craziness. Good stuff, Steven. Thanks.

[COPerez]

I was still in the Army when the Soviet Union fell apart. The military was put on a higher alert several times when it was feared that the dying giant might just try to go out with a spasm of suicidal military violence. Thankfully that never happened, but it's something to fear from the Republicans now (not military of course): look at the loonies with the guns showing up in all kinds of places that they would have been arrested and disappeared during the prior administration. Look at the sheer obstructionism with any idea of what to do instead. Look at the personal attacks on everyone the the left of Newt Gingrich.

An empire is always most dangerous as it's dying.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

While the left reacts with incredulity at the latest turd to fall from conservative mouths, our supposedly progressive savior packs his economic team with the same hard liners Bush employed, holds that anyone who relied on and operated under the "torture memos" would be immune to prosecution, continues to make a mess of the middle east, continues the "don't ask don't tell" attitude toward TARP funding, upholds the reasoning that gave us DOMA, holds secret meetings with Pharmaceutical reps, proposes indisputable mandates that all americans buy private insurance policies and backs off the public option.

Any bets on global warming?

This "Conservat­ive/Libera­l Puppet Show" only serves to give Obama and Congress cover as the "center" moves ever farther right. Like Mary Matalin and James Carville, all the differences between Republicans and Democrats are just glorified marital squabbles. "Mommy and Daddy may fight, little voter, but together, they always serve their corporate masters. When you're old/smart/strong enough, you can make your own decisions, but while you live under this roof mister/missie, you'll abide by our rules."

The illusion of a two-party system, while it has provided some interesting theater, is fast becoming an outright farce. Obama now represents the most craven bit of casting yet. All of the soaring rhetoric, the grassroots movement, the promise of a progressive agenda, the implied advances for African-Americans . . . all of it pure B.S.

Frankly, "Mommy and Daddy" can go f**k themselves. It's time to leave home.

[sdskelton03]

What exactly was Mr. Obama supposed to do provide advances for African Americans? Why would he do them for African Americans but not Asian-Americans? Why aren't you upset about what he hasn't done for Finnish Americans?

As a Finnish American, I can tell you that there hasn't been one advancement of my causes by the president. Why aren't we up in arms about that? Are Finnish Americans less important to you? Why do you hate Finnish Americans?

[salvesons]

"Obama now represents the most craven bit of casting yet." No-- not true. Bush was. While O needs to walk the walk, he at least knows where his feet are, and who has a leg out wanting to trip him up when he walks. If you fold, you are doing the Republican's bidding -- you don't want to drink at all when the water is muddy, huh? Well, it is Republicans who have muddied the water on purpose with the explicit strategy to Undermine the President and Undermine the Government to grab power back. But you want to blame the man who's waded into the water to try and apply the chemicals necessary to clean it just because he's standing in the water neck deep trying to help? (And if you really think he's not trying to help at all, you are really too cynical). At least he's on the same page with reality. Sure, it is unfortunate what he inherited and uses from Bush. But if you walk away now in disgust, you should have MOVED AWAY long ago under Bush. Since you're still here, why not continue to fight the good fight against corporate ownership of our politics. Don't do the right wing's bidding by Blaming Obama and walking away in a dramatic flourish. Instead keep holding Obama's feet to the fire. And, then, hold the feet of Republicans to the fire thrice, and vote for Obama in 2012.

[salvesons]

"Obama now represents the most craven bit of casting yet." No-- not true. Bush was. While O needs to walk the walk, he at least knows where his feet are, and who has a leg out wanting to trip him up when he walks. If you fold, you are doing the Republican's bidding -- you don't want to drink at all when the water is muddy, huh? Well, it is Republicans who have muddied the water on purpose with the explicit strategy to Undermine the President and Undermine the Government to grab power back. But you want to blame the man who's waded into the water to try and apply the chemicals necessary to clean it just because he's standing in the water neck deep trying to help? (And if you really think he's not trying to help at all, you are really too cynical). At least he's on the same page with reality. Sure, it is unfortunate what he inherited and uses from Bush. But if you walk away now in disgust, you should have MOVED AWAY long ago under Bush. Since you're still here, why not continue to fight the good fight against corporate ownership of our politics. Don't do the right wing's bidding by Blaming Obama and walking away in a dramatic flourish. Instead keep holding Obama's feet to the fire. And, then, hold the feet of Republicans to the fire thrice, and vote for Obama in 2012.

[ThePeacemakers]

Need a four party system.
1) In lieu of campaign finance reform, this would make the price outrageous for corps trying to buy their legislation. Let em, pay and pay and pay. Try covering the bets on four sides of a debate !
2) Need to start now with a no incumbent left standing movement. Really, not re-electing these paid off folks is the first step toward a sane system.

[maxfolger]

The article states: "...Republ­ican/Conse­rvative world has pretty much detached from the Union and aggressively declared independence from even its own historical devotion to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.­."

That pretty much sums it up, and it's hard to tell whether this is terrifying for the US or just pathetic.

For a satirical look at the GOP's new marketing strategy, readers might enjoy this short video:

http://bit.ly/24bf6

[lastpost]

“In fact, I am suddenly feeling the urge to denounce, oh, the law of gravity”

For something so apparently lawful, we don’t seem to possess a particularly convincing grasp of its actual nature. Or the reasons, why certain observable objects do not appear to be adhering to it either.

[levibatgirl]

Excellent, as usual!

[DickClark]

....Yup!..­...

[msgirlintn]

Great post! I loved the sarcasm. But I do not understand how you listen to Tony Blankley. That guy drives me nuts when he is on Hardball, which seems to be a lot lately. Anybody else think Chris Matthews is moving to the right on us?