Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein: "It's Even Worse Than It Looks"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-07/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-its-even-worse-it-looks
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein join Diane to talk about their new book and why they think Congress has become more partisan and dysfunctional than at any other time in history.
Guests
Thomas Mann
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks."
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It is amazing to hear a critique of Republicans and Tea Party activists from Thomas Mann of the Brookins Institute. His canned, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions are common dogma produced by an organization that demonizes groups who don't think like them. It's leader, Strobe Talbott, is a dedicated leader of big government solutions and global capitalist programs , so Mr. Mann is merely promoting those values. What we have just heard is a common, straw man arguement disguised as "thoughtful", "unbiased" and "concilliatory". His comments about gridlock keeping the country from moving forward reinforce his organization's belief that big government aligned with big business has all the solutions. That is one of the core beliefs of the Brookings Institute.
Actually, you are only half-right. Conservatives are always calling for "smaller government" when it comes to matters of economic policy/economic equality. They want MORE government when it comes to social policy--trying to tell a woman what to do with her body, whether we can chose to end our lives, who gets married, or who lives and dies. They are for "less government" when they are out of power, and "more government" when they are in power...talk about hypocrisy!
Beyond The Poli... wrote: knee-jerk responses, intransigent, which tries to come off as critical thinking...and it's anything BUT! Your mind in trapped in narrow dogma.
A bit full of yourself aye. I don't see anything in your posts that offers anything other than insults so no reason to get into specifics with you because you think you have all the answers, let's just leave it at that.
Your repeated ad hominem attacks against the show and other posters provides the readers with plenty of evidence of "knee-jerk responses" and of being "intransigent". Among your very numerous posts, you said no one here has an idea of a Libertarian form of government. By definition, a true Libertarian who follows Libertarian principles would not participate in any government and, unlike Ron Paul, would not hold office in any government that would elect him/her.
Labeling all "liberals" as those who want totalitarianism is more than offensive - it's just plain wrong. Rather than respond with a knee-jerk of my own and label conservatives as fascists etc., let's just state the case for truth. True liberals want just enough government to provide for the people and to hold charlatans at bay and little more. Even Jefferson acknowledged the need for some barrier between the governed and those who would assault them - his choice was a free press. Without a modicum of enforceable regulation, commerce and public interaction become a wild-west free-for-all i.e. chaos.
As a Constitutional member of my own government and as a former enlisted defender of same, I cannot and will not make my "We The People" government my enemy, but, rather, work to improve it where I can.
LibVet wrote:
"Your repeated ad hominem attacks against the show and other posters"
Other posters? where when? I know most of the posters I resond too and their position from past broadcasts, get up to speed! The show is fair game for attack. Liberal media in all it's glory.
ad ho·mi·nem/ˈad ˈhämənəm/Adverb: .Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
What the heck is a libertarian?
I will offer three definitions:
1. The simple definition. A libertarian is someone who, in general, supports government policies that favor individual liberty in all matters, whether economic, personal, or social.
Libertarians are frequently characterized as "conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal issues." That's not a bad definition, but it's kind of like saying vodka is "half screwdriver and half white Russian." It implies that libertarians are being inconsistent, whereas in fact libertarianism is more consistent than either conservatism or liberalism. I prefer to say, "Conservatives are frequently libertarian on economic issues, and liberals are frequently libertarian on personal issues." (I would also say that conservatives are usually authoritarian on personal issues, and liberals are usually authoritarian on economic issues.)
A list of policies that most libertarians support would include: legalization of drugs, legalization of all consensual sexual acts between consenting adults (including sodomy and prostitution), abolition of government censorship in all its forms (including restrictions on pornography), free trade, noninterventionist foreign policy, abolition of rent control, abolition of the minimum wage, abolition of farm and business subsidies, abolition of arts subsidies, privatization of Social Security, abolition of welfare, and drastic reduction of taxes.
For a decent indicator of whether you are a libertarian according to the simple definition, take the World's Shortest Political Quiz.
2. The more complex, philosophical definition. A libertarian is someone who, as a general rule, supports the non-aggression ethic (or as some people call it, the non-aggression axiom, or NGA). The non-aggression ethic holds, to quote David Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer, that "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else."
Two phrases in this statement bear special emphasis. The first is "initiation of aggression." Libertarians strongly support the right of individuals to respond to aggression against them -- i.e., everyone has the right of self defense. What libertarians oppose is the initiation of force (or aggression) against others.
The second important phrase is "no one." Libertarians believe that no means no. People do not acquire the right to initiate aggression against others simply because they are agents of the state, or because they get the majority of people to agree with them. The key issue is not who uses aggression, but rather the purpose for which it is used. Libertarians believe, for the most part, that aggression is only justified if used to limit the initiation of aggression by others.
3. The crass political definition. A Libertarian (note the capital L) is a member of the Libertarian Party, a national political party in the United States. A libertarian and a Libertarian are not necessarily the same thing, but in general, the LP advocates policies that libertarians (small l) are likely to support.
The LP's official Statement of Principles says, "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." That's a pretty good statement of the motivating ideal behind libertarianism. Nonetheless, many libertarians decline to support the LP for various reasons, most often the perception that the LP is ineffective or dominated by especially dogmatic libertarians.
Iwould like to invite "litertarians r us" to watch Bruce Bartlett's analysis of our debt crisis on Youtube. He is certainly no flaming liberal, but he asserts unequivocally that the debt from two needless unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription mandate, and a tax cut for the wealthy--all incurred during Bush II presidency--amounts to $14 trillion which is exactly what the national debt is.
I am for trimming all the fat out of the budget that is possible, but when tax-cutters go after the "fat" they always target the benefits to the poorest of the poor, not farm-subsidies, not oil-depletion allowances, and not tax brakes for offshore corporations and Swiss bank accounts.
I would like to invite "litertarians r us" to watch Bruce Bartlett's analysis of our debt crisis on Youtube. He is certainly no flaming liberal, but he asserts unequivocally that the debt from two needless unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription mandate, and a tax cut for the wealthy--all incurred during Bush II presidency--amounts to $14 trillion which is exactly what the national debt is.
I am for trimming all the fat out of the budget that is possible, but when tax-cutters go after the "fat" they always target the benefits to the poorest of the poor, not farm-subsidies, not oil-depletion allowances, and not tax brakes for offshore corporations and Swiss bank accounts.
ShowMeStl wrote: unequivocally that the debt from two needless unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription mandate, and a tax cut for the wealthy--all incurred during Bush II presidency--amounts to $14 trillion which is exactly what the national debt is.
The national debt is about 16 trillion. Do you realize president Obama was on the other end of the pen for about 5 trillion of of it. More than any other president in such a short period of time. Libertarians were just as upset with George Bush as Obama.
ShowMe:"I am for trimming all the fat out of the budget that is possible, but when tax-cutters go after the "fat" they always target the benefits to the poorest of the poor"
Not true, we need draw a distinction between middle class welfare and welfare for the poor and needy.
Don't be mad LRU because you're so predictable. ;)
OK, I get it, your frustrated and this is all you can come up with. You people with your cheap shots and lame arguments don't even come close to getting under my skin. In fact I enjoy it because it gives me a reason to research and perfect my arguments. I like politics like some like sports.
Unfortunately I am joining this conversation late and probably no one will read this post, but here it is for what it is worth. The back and forth on this thread seems like a microcosm of our political debate (if one could even call it that) on the national scale.
The conversation has been hijacked by one individual detracting from any issues that may be addressed. It is obvious that there is no way this person is going to change her mind. So why respond. It is like answering a child when they have asked “why?” for the hundredth time.
And, even though it is gratifying, every time some one calls her an idiot, or a fascist, or sewage trapped in skin, it validates her and propels her to continue because she is getting attention, much like a child who pulls her sisters hair or North Korea. I know it is cliché, but don’t encourage her. Ignore her and she’ll stop.
Paramour wrote: " a fascist, or sewage trapped in skin, it validates her and propels her to continue because she is getting attention, much like a child who pulls her sisters hair or North Korea. I know it is cliché, but don’t encourage her. Ignore her and she’ll stop."
You liberals are just so nice and friendly, so opened (libvet) minded so superior!
Stop, not a chance.
Other than dozens of vacuous posts, bad grammar, poor vocabulary, and even worse spelling, LRU provides only an example of vituperative and hatred and unfounded dislike of liberals. My original intent in posting was to point out that it seems only fair to at least wait until a show is broadcast before dumping on it or Diane or the guests. LRU posted and hated well before the broadcast and confirms the lack of any real basis for commentary on the show. LRUs replies provide the rest of the evidence.
LibVet, what does that mean? liberal veteran! kind of an oxymoron, like that word? it's appropriate in two ways if you break it up. They say veterans have fought for our freedom. If your a liberal and support the big government democrat party I guess that settles that argument. Many veterans couldn't give a damn about freedom.
I think I do a pretty good job for a two finger typist arguing with four or five crack pots at the same time in real time. If you haven't noticed this is an extreme left web site, what you think as a flaming angry liberal about me is irrelevant. I see I made a mistake with opened minded instead of open minded, I could have changed it with the edit but left it there for you to feel good about yourself, you apparently need all the help you can get with your pettiness.
How disappointing to see Diane reveal her own bias by waiting until 27 minutes into the broadcast to question the guests on their claims of objectivity. Their response that 90% of their responses were supportive demonstrates to me that they exist in a reinforcing echo-chamber. A look at either guest's Wikipedia page reveals their strong establishment centrist ties; they obviously kneel at the feet of the status quot that has led us to the current state of affairs.
I am not suggesting that I agree or support some of the craven rhetoric coming from the Republicans, though I have to say that I've heard some absurdities from some Democrats as well, but I understand the point of view of much of the Right. to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine that a party has come to power that wants to re-impose Jim Crow or slavery, penalizing people based on the color their skin etc. This is how the Right sees President Obama, the Left and the Centrists and even the moderate Republicans - always increasing the size of government and reducing freedom (Patriot Act, TARP, NDAA, etc.), enslaving the country gradually. Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice", and I believe that most folks on the Left would agree that turning to extremism to free black slaves, end Jim Crow etc. was justifiable.
Let's go to each extreme for a moment:
On the Libertarian end, are we willing to let people who start out life without a family wealthy enough to provide them with food, shelter, healthcare, and an education to simply starve to death in the streets? - In which case, who will pay to cart away the dead bodies and bury them?
On the Socialist end, do we want the government to own factories, farms, and all other means of production and to dole them out as government bureaucrats decide? We'll level wealth until everyone lives at the same low level of prosperity with little wealth.
The reality is that government has its role, private enterprise has its role and the trick is to determine where things fall on a spectrum from Socialism - through regulated capitalism - to Libertarianism.
The art of governing is to determine where things fall on that spectrum -- all with the goal of sustaining our country and our planet, respecting human and civil rights of all people, and balancing individual initiative with the public good.
We must have a population of educated, healthy, and financially stable people living on a well-maintained and environmentally sound planet.
If the ultra-wealthy continue to increase their wealth by stripping the working classes is unsustainable just as leveling the society until everyone lives in poverty is unsustainable. Wildly disproportionate wealth is unsustainable. A completely flat wealth curve is equally unsustainable.
We must be pragmatic rather than doctrinaire and we must have the full-participation of all people.
So, how to do we build a sustainable infrastructure? How do we educate people? How do we make enough work available at a living wage for all able-bodied people to work?
What about Norm Ornstein? He works for the American Enterprise Institute.
The political rancor of Republicans is fed by their desire to return the country to a pre-New Deal economy where almost all of the job creation is in the private sector and driven by profit.
This is the dynamic of postwar deregulated economy based consumerism for the last 50 years at least. This always has been the Republican strategy. The private sector based economy driven by consumerism and higher profits relocated production offshore to increase profits with lower labor costs which had the unintended consequence of decreasing disposable income here which fed consumption. There should be no surprise the country is on the brink of another Great Depression.
What the country needs to do is recapture job creation in the public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector to guarantee that the unemployment rate never exceeds a minimum level and that a living wage is paid to every worker and that there is enough disposable income available to maintain consumption levels.