If We Do Not Destroy Ourselves: Parsing Fact from Fiction in a Nation Divided by Lies

[Hobie]

Friend linked me to this saying "sounds just like your rants on politics now being like team sports."

http://thisorth.at/7q4k

I have seen a lot of interesting arguments in response to my last article, 5 Myths About Organic Food, most of them related to the fact that I mentioned Wal-Mart in the article. Generally, when I sit down and start typing out articles and essays, I am responding to research I've done. It begins when someone sends me a chain email or when I read an article on the virtues of recycling, composting, tax breaks for big business, unions, transvestitism, etc.

Usually, the author of the email or article will present some kind of "fact" or figure that causes me to go..."really?" Then I look for the source of the statement. Does the source have an agenda? What does the statement really say? This, of course, is called critical analysis. They used to teach it in college. I don't know if they still do.

The Blame Game

As everyone knows, S&P recently downgraded America's credit rating for the first time in history. The GOP blames Obama. The Dems blame the GOP. And Obama blames S&P, claiming the downgrade was unfair and arbitrary. What does S&P say? To paraphrase, they say you didn't cut the deficit enough and we don't believe the two parties can put politics aside long enough to create meaningful policy. The stock market is echoing that concern.

We can read all the analysis offered by Rachel Maddow, Howard Fineman, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and/or a host of other agenda-wielding experts...and that's what most folks seem to do. The other option is to apply Occam's razor. They downgraded the U.S. and told us it was because they had lost faith in our leaders' ability to work together. Most of the country has lost faith in their ability to work together. Same with the market. Occam's conclusion: these guys aren't working together.

With the unprecedented power that comes from instant access to information, you and I have the ability to research any claim. We can access thousands of legitimate sources through our desktop computers, laptops, and smart phones. But how do we use these devices? Most often we use them to read inflammatory arguments that support the ideas we already agree with. Then we forward the piece to all our friends without ever verifying its veracity.

The GOP base tends to jump on any GOPish position without really taking a hard look at the facts. Taxes? No way. Regulation? No way. Minimum wage? No way. Alternative energy? No way. "All those ideas are part of the left's evil plan to destroy our country and usher in an elitist socialistic regime. They are DESTROYING America...and they're doing it on purpose....'cause they ain't got God."

The Democrats also tend to jump on Demish positions without thinking them through. Tax breaks to promote business development are seen as handouts to the GOP's wealthy friends. They say no way to domestic drilling. They are against meaningful spending cuts, even within programs that are abject failures. They tend to believe that their Republican opponents are evil Jesus freaks who want to outlaw pleasure and gather up all the money and power, leaving the underprivileged to die in the streets.

For my part, I like to expose the myths and present the truth. Here's an example: I feel certain that America needs to lead a total-push effort to develop alternative energy. We should approach this with the same fervor that we devoted to putting a man on the moon. If JFK were elected president today, this would be his "New Frontier."

Why should we devote our resources to alternative energy? Is it because I think we're running out of fossil fuels? No. Is it because I think we're significantly contributing to climate change? Doubtful. I think we should commit ourselves to this effort because whoever gets there first will reap tremendous benefits. We spent billions on the Apollo project. Many complained that we were wasting money by sending "a bunch of junk" into space. But look at the benefits to our world and to the economy. Everyone who works for Dish Network or Comcast or Google or AOL or On Star or Yahoo or any of the other companies that collectively generate trillions of dollars each year because of the "junk" we sent to space is surely happy be employed.

The space program now allows nearly every company to be far more productive. The more wealth we produce, the more we have. Today the financial investment we made in the space program seems like pennies compared to the incalculable wealth that has been created as a result. Cheaper, cleaner alternative energy will have a similar impact. Imagine a source of cheap energy that is clean enough to eliminate government restrictions and regulations related to pollution--regulations that have been crippling to many American manufacturers. Think they might be interested?

I also feel certain that we need to drill for oil. Let's get on it. If we open up drilling on American soil and in American waters, we stand to create over 500,000 high paying American jobs and inject over $150 billion into the federal government each year. We need the jobs and the money...especially if we want to generate enough tax revenue to pursue a high cost alternative energy race.

So how do we get the Dems to agree to drill? How do we get the GOP to agree to invest in alternative energy? What's blocking the two sides from coming together and creating policy that would increase drilling while aggressively working to develop alternative energy? It's you and me. Or at least we play a part.

We blindly subscribe to virtually any "fact," figure, or statement put forth by various special interest groups. We forward emails supporting "our side" without ever checking them against the facts. We vilify the other side, immediately marginalize any claim they make, and even rejoice when politicians from the other side get caught in a scandal. If you're a hard right-winger, you may hate the fact that our credit rating has been downgraded, but judging by comments on the internet, op-ed articles, and right-wing spam emails, many on the right are thrilled to see this happening on Obama's watch. "See how smart I am. I knew this Barrack Hussein Obama guy was a no good socialist, intent on destroying the country I love."

Our elected officials, terrified of losing the support of their bases, puff out their chests and refuse to support non-party-line ideas, regardless of how good those ideas may be. Cut, Cap, and Trade--"see what a badass I am?" Right. That was nothing but a waste of time and a lot of hot air. Why not just propose legislation that requires all Democrats to resign their seats to Republicans? I think it would have been slightly more likely to be signed into law. I supported Boehner before. Now I just think he's a blowhard.

[Hobie]

What Reaganomics Really Did

The GOP argues for reduced taxes on the rich and decreased spending. They even want a balanced budget amendment, which causes me to question whether or not any of them have even studied American History (other than the fairytale history taught by Glenn Beck). If you mention the Golden Age of Capitalism to your Republican neighbor, he is likely to think that you're referring to the Reagan era. And most Democratic constituents probably think that Reaganomics was all about lowering taxes on the rich and starving the poor. Both are wrong.

Here's a quick history lesson. The Golden Age of Capitalism refers to our Nation's longest period of sustained economic growth beginning in the mid '40s and extending until 1971. How did it happen? In simple terms, the entire Western world adopted a Keynesian approach to economics. We broke out of our economic difficulties by reducing taxes, reducing regulations on business, increasing deficit spending, investing in the infrastructure, reducing interest rates, and putting money into the hands of the "have-nots," who in turn spent that money, putting it right back into the economy.

The economy tanked in 1973 due to the Gulf Oil Crisis. It was made worse when the marginal tax rate on the wealthy hit a whopping 70%. The increase in taxes took much needed capital out of the private sector and killed job creating businesses. Enter Ronald Reagan.

Young well-meaning lefties love to bash Reaganomics. What most of them don't realize is that Reaganomics was patently Keynesian, though Reagan would never have admitted it and most rank and file Republicans don't even know how Keynesian Reagan's strategies were.

First, Reagan cut taxes on the rich and simplified the tax code, eliminating a number of loopholes. Second, he engaged in deficit spending, building infrastructure, escalating the arms race, and putting money into the hands of the less-privileged. He also reduced regulations on business, cut capital gains tax, making it more attractive for those with wealth to invest in business, and took control of the money supply to reduce inflation.

Some called it Reaganomics. I call it Keynesian economics in a brand new package. I also call it the catalyst for bringing the U.S. out of a recession and into a tremendous period of sustained growth. Reagan was a conservative, and to appeal to his conservative base, he sold it as a "tax-cut" strategy. He was an exemplary salesman.

Some say Reagan's "trickle-down" approach never trickled down. That may be true to the extent that the entire nation didn't become Bill Gates. But Reagan's opponents love to ignore the hard facts. Under Reagan's presidency there was growth in every quintile. The poor didn't become rich, but they became a lot less poor. The middle-class thrived and so did business. Unemployment disappeared.

Many rank and file Dems from that era remember Reagan's mighty economic feats. Many supported him. They became known as "Reagan Democrats." And sure, Reagan should have done more to address HIV. He should have abandoned the wasteful and ineffective war on drugs. There are plenty of Reagan policies I disagree with. Make a list; I don't care. But if you think his economic strategy was simply to cut taxes on the rich, making them richer, you don't know your ass from a hockey puck.

The GOP loves to focus on this single aspect of Reaganomics, cutting taxes, as if that's a panacea. They forget that Reagan was cutting taxes from a monstrously high and undeniably debilitating 70%, not 35%. The Dems, on the other hand, love to claim that cutting taxes on the wealthy was the sum total of Reagan's strategy and they blame our current financial disparity on that act alone.

The end result is that we have split the nation, once again, into 2 factions: cut taxes v. cut spending. Both sides strut and swagger like baboons showing their asses, while the rest of us ride along, quoting (and misquoting) various "experts," historical figures, academicians, pundits, and college drop-outs, such as Glenn Beck who was unable to complete a single college course in "Early Christology."

Take a Critical View

My goal is to challenge the reader to take a critical view of the issues he or she accepts as truth. Here are a few things that, upon taking a closer look, might shock you:

Recycling is bad for the environment.
Electric vehicles result in net increase in the consumption of fossil fuels.
Statistically speaking, Nuclear energy has resulted in far fewer deaths and injuries than oil, natural gas, coal or hydro. It has also been far kinder to the environment.
Logging is good for the forests.
Farming, not logging, is the primary cause of the loss of our rainforests.
Kennedy was more conservative than George W. Bush.
Nixon was more liberal than Clinton.
Our nation has always functioned better when the power in the House, Senate, and Executive Branch has been split between parties.
Our current tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP, is at a historical low.
The deregulation that led to the mortgage crisis and ultimately the collapse of our economy happened under Bill Clinton's watch. It was not an act of the traditional champions of deregulation, the GOP.
Solar power uses more fossil fuel than it saves.
Alexander Tytler did not say, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Neither did Alexis de Tocqueville, nor did any other famous person. No one knows its origin.
Obama was born in Hawaii.
Marijuana does not lead to harder drugs.
Currently, illegal immigration leads to a net increase in job creation for American citizens and a net increase in tax revenue in most areas.

I may write on some or all of these topics in the future. In the mean time, do yourself a favor. Read up on any position you decide to support. And I don't mean you should scan Wikipedia and come back with a bunch of quotes you find there. Wikipedia is a good staring point if the article is well referenced. You can follow the references and study a subject. But be careful to consider whether or not the source has an agenda. Reading an article on Supply-Side economics, for example, won't cut it. It's important to do enough research to enable you to understand the subtleties of the economics. Over the last couple years, I have devoured articles, essays, and academic papers on macroeconomics and a variety of other topics.

Adapt to the Truth, Not One Party's Ideals

Several years ago, I was a die-hard conservative Republican. I was even socially conservative...family values, Ten Commandments in the courthouse, prayer in schools, etc. Then, as a result of reading both sides, I became a die-hard libertarian...fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I thought this was what the constitution was all about.

In time, as I looked at the state of Latin America, the decline of the American middle-class, and the growing disparity between America's richest and poorest, I began to recognize that there are times when the free-market will not correct itself, at least not quickly enough. I started to realize that there is enough wealth to ensure that children don't starve and that they're able to receive adequate medical care. I also learned that if we employ cutting edge science, we could feed the world. Norman Borlaug showed us what is possible. If we can move beyond politics, mythology and ideology: no child has to go hungry.

So, now I don't know what I am. We live in a complex world-much more complex than it was a generation ago. There is no single ideology--Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist--that can address all the issues that emerge. We need to solve problems with good ideas, regardless of whose good ideas they are. But to do that, we have to be open to thinking that is different from our own. Prejudice stifles creativity. And the opposite of creativity is destructivity.

America has led the way to improvements in the lives of people across the globe. We love to bash ourselves, and no doubt, we've made mistakes...big ones. 104,000 Iraqi deaths come to mind. But before you go bashing American companies with their "obscene" profits and penchant for outsourcing, think about what these companies have provided for us: the computer I'm currently using to write this, your smart phone, the electricity that comes to your house, the vaccine the insures your child won't get polio, breast cancer screenings, safer food, your iPod, and the job that allows you to have the money to feed your kids.
And if you are convinced that America is a selfish bully that runs roughshod over the rest of the world, think again. We provide more in foreign aid than anyone. We defend the free world from the likes of North Korea and China. And I'd like to remind our French allies that, if not for the military might of the United States, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. So be careful what you wish for lest you wake up one morning to discover that the Eiffel tower has been replaced with a giant statue of Chairman Mao.

Will we come together to create a better world, or will we destroy the progress we've made?

[Vertnut]

Eh...more propaganda. We will never "meet in the middle", because we're too far gone from the "middle". The strong will survive, just like in the real world. There's no sin in that.

[Hobie]

Eh...more propaganda. We will never "meet in the middle", because we're too far gone from the "middle". The strong will survive, just like in the real world. There's no sin in that.

Someone telling you to do your due diligence and think for yourself is propaganda?

[talisman]

Eh...more propaganda.

facepalm.

[Hobie]

facepalm.

I was thinking the same thing, lol.

[slow99]

Later guys. Gotta go think for myself because somebody told me to.

[Hobie]

Later guys. Gotta go think for myself because somebody told me to.

Two points;

A) You're smarter than most people.

B) Even smart people drank the kool-aid.


Seriously, think about some of the BS that gets forwarded to your inbox. Perhaps your friends/family are really with it, but mine sure aren't. I'm still being forwarded lies about 9/11 shit 10 years later.
People are d-u-m-b.

[Forever_frost]

This is not divided enough. There should be no moderates in either party, everyone should have at least read the constitution and have a side. Best reason to invest in renewable energy is for profit though.

[exlude]

This is not divided enough. There should be no moderates in either party, everyone should have at least read the constitution and have a side. Best reason to invest in renewable energy is for profit though.

[Hobie]

LOL @ post 10.

[Vertnut]

Someone telling you to do your due diligence and think for yourself is propaganda?

I don't think we need to "compromise", that's all. I'm not always willing to "give", and right now is one of those times.
They can say all they want about Reagan, but it was a pretty damn good time to be an American, unlike right now.

[Vertnut]

Two points;

A) You're smarter than most people.

B) Even smart people drank the kool-aid.


Seriously, think about some of the BS that gets forwarded to your inbox. Perhaps your friends/family are really with it, but mine sure aren't. I'm still being forwarded lies about 9/11 shit 10 years later.
People are d-u-m-b.

So Jody is "smart" and I'm not? LOL!

[Hobie]

I don't think we need to "compromise", that's all. I'm not always willing to "give", and right now is one of those times.
They can say all they want about Reagan, but it was a pretty damn good time to be an American, unlike right now.

That view is exactly what this article is about. The childlike "It's my rules or I'm taking the ball and going home" political climate of the last 10 years is dragging this nation down.

Did you even read the article? The writer PRAISED Reaganomics. Whatchutalkin'boutWillis??? I'm banging my head on the keyboard over here. This site is so much picard.jpg

[Vertnut]

That view is exactly what this article is about. The childlike "It's my rules or I'm taking the ball and going home" political climate of the last 10 years is dragging this nation down.

Did you even read the article? The writer PRAISED Reaganomics. Whatchutalkin'boutWillis??? I'm banging my head on the keyboard over here. This site is so much picard.jpg

I read it. I was addressing what the author said about "lefties love to bash Reaganomics". They're still out there.
I'm not going "home" or anywhere else. LOL! Fuck compromise. I'm not in the mood after the last 3 years. I love the "political police" telling me my business...