Our Divided Political Heart
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-30/our-divided-political-heart
After months of presidential primaries across the country, Texas voters handed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination yesterday. The Republican Party will formally nominate Romney at the GOP convention in August. The campaign now begins in earnest. The economy continues to weigh most on voters' minds. Romney's party favors smaller government and lower taxes--issues that have divided Americans greatly in recent years. Political analysts E.J. Dionne and Ross Douthat join Diane to talk about our divided nation and what can be done about it.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution, columnist, Washington Post and author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Ross Douthat
Op-Ed columnist, The New York Times; author of "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics."
Read An Excerpt
Excerpt from "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent" by E.J. Dionne. Copyright 2012 by E.J. Dionne. Reprinted here by permission of Bloomsbury USA. All rights reserved.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Teece Bowman wrote:
It is obvious if you can look past the lies and cruelty one can only come to the conclusion that even reasoning with the right is impossible.
Thus the division."
This is a perfect mirror image to my own observations regarding the left.
The federal gov't has done far too much damage due to being manipulated by the left. This is over now, and for the foreseeable future.
All this talk of from liberals like Dionne about "compromise" and "division" is a smoke screen. What Dionne and his leftist buddies really mean is "our agenda is de-railed". Just so.
This economic downturn has really stopped the libs in their tracks, and all this drama is because their power structure is in grave danger.
I am really looking forward to seeing Obama rejected this fall, just like that other democrat failure, Jimmah Cartah.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
--Patrick Henry
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
--John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
A
I don't know exactly who began this vaunted notion of the deterioration of the poor old public discourse, but It's become painfully yawn-inducing to hear the obsessive lamentations all over the media. NPR seems to "discuss" the matter at least once a week. Anyone who subscribes to this notion must be profoundly ignorant of American political history. I'm afraid I don't know what else to say other than read/listen to primary source material from past campaigns. I think you will often find much more explicit debates over ideology than we typically have today, where debates tend to focus on disembodied "issues."
Secondly, this notion of "individualism," creeping insidiously into our political lives..? I mean, really; this is practically a copy-written old partisan saw. For the sake of argument, one could say that we've become more collectivized than ever, and back it up with similar anecdotal "evidence": people are more institutionalized than ever (for example, people go to school in greater numbers and stay in longer), social networking and the ubiquitous presence of a large network of peers has created an environment wherein we are all constantly reminded of our membership in larger collectives, etc.
Thirdly, I'm neither Conservative nor Liberal, but I am aware enough to know that bringing out a NY Times writer to represent the "Conservative" perspective is a cop-out. Conservatives by and large detest the NY Times; everyone knows this. These debates are utter pablum; if she wanted to demonstrate divisiveness effectively, she could have found someone who truly represented a conservative stance. She could have also brought in a true Progressive; things could have actually become interesting.
No T-Party Republican can ever justify their 'get big government off my back' psychobabble,and balance that view regarding their historic opposition to the A.C.L.U.
The A.C.L.U. is and has been the 'get the big government off my back' offensive .......ALWAYS !!!!! And ALWAYS the enemy of the GOTP !!!! ALWAYS !!!!
Ha! Indeed :)
I've been to a number of Tea Party events, and nobody I've met is "anti-government" to the degree your program is suggesting. This is exactly the behavior that divides us, because the left refuses to listen to the details, and routinely paints everyone that is "not" progressive liberal socialist, as being radical. What we want is a government of Dem. John Kennedy, who by today's standards was quite fiscally conservative and financially responsible! Our government back then was able to put us on the moon, make the Russians back down without firing a single shot just because of our fierce and capable reputation! "We" also want laws on small business reduced. (Not necessarily large corps in all cases.) When I started business in 1985, the total of U.S. labor laws could fit on a sheet of paper, and mostly applied to larger businesses with 50 or more employees. Since Clinton took over in the 1990's we "would" now have to hire a $80K+ per year H.R. Expert, and have an attorney on retainer just to navigate the many phone-book thick legislative laws inflicted on us, even with as few as 1 employee. This alone is why I left my business at 30 employees size. I had plans to grow! THIS is where the missing jobs are! I could no longer could draw a salary at even 30 employees! (Which by the way, is perfectly legal, for me, the business owner to go without pay forever!) Fixing these few items is the Tea Party! If we want Jobs, and small business to thrive, take a second look, join us. Free? We cannot walk, drive, eat, breath, travel, go to the doctor, date, hire, or absolutely ANYTHING without facing laws of some sort, video cameras, invasion of privacy at every level. I can't put an A/C on top of my house without an act of congress! There is absolutely NO freedom of any kind in this country! I've been to Asia and even Eastern Europe. Both are far more free than we are here. Period. Where is the balance you speak of?
I have to totally agree with the above comment: NPR's attempt to represent the views of anyone that is not a classic Progressive, are either fraudulent, or weak at best. Why do you NOT have guests that truly represent the opposite views? Where is the sense of balance, truth, instead of the smoke and mirrors? That "Conservative" was more leftist than the "Rhinos" that we just removed from office last November, and is NOT a representative of what you are debating. This is another example that a previous commenter made, that Progressive idea of "compromise" is everyone else gives up what they want, except the progressives. It's a disappointing fraud most times I tune in here. Even my Liberal friends agree with me on this when I point it out to them! NPR credibility is the worst of all the media, and exactly why your funding is at risk.
The entire point of the right and the 1% is to privatize and profitize all government services, even the military. Under Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld the military was outsourced with no bid and no oversight contracts costing the government billions of wasted dollars but conservatives do not question this since great profits were made by corporations. This is what Romney and the tea party basically stand for.
Paul Ryan wants to privatize medicare, and social secutiry and the right will not be appeased until this happens. Look no further than Ohio, Wisconsin and New Jersey to see what is occuring with education "reform" in those states.
Freedom is defined only as freedom of the markets.
Smoot wrote:
"This is a perfect mirror image to my own observations regarding the left."
Thus the division....
It always interests me that conservative people continue to see Community mainly in terms of religion. I have found that the newest form of community - a place for devotion and political opinions - gathers around food: Community gardens in cities and towns, farm to table restaurants, local farmer's markets. Many of the people involved in these projects are liberal thinkers who also want minimum government interference with their efforts. What they also want is to limit capitalism's tendency to squeeze out the small markets, small gardens, small community efforts in favor of cheap goods. People may not agree on religious affiliations (which often exclude) but they do agree on food and love of growing things.
It`s kind of funny. The former Soviet Union,(USSR), used to call us names like,Capitalists and Imperialists. Those were meant to be like the (N) word of today. Imperialists invade countries,steal the resources,and never go home. A Capitalist is someone who earns his living off the work and sweat of others.HUMM?
So much of conversation today deals with name calling. I often wonder what are the definitions the name caller implies.
The Republic of France,recently held it`s Democratic elections,where for the first time in decades the voters chose the Socialist candidate,to rescue the ailing Austerity Capitalist economy.
That should keep the name callers busy a while.
Smoot wrote:
"It is foolish to compromise these days - what compromise means to the left is for the right to give in"
Smoot I don't know if you are referring to ancient history or what. But I have absolutely no memory of the right having compromised on anything!!!! IN FACT I am angry at BHO and the Dems for all the caving they have done to the Right wing agenda man we are on 2 different planets! I am on earth you are in another dimension
E J Dionne committed a fundamental error when he did not do enough real research. I have not read his book (he undoubtedly will not read this post so equal?) but I did look at the index and there is no listing for Slotkin, Richard. There is also no listing for schizmogenesis. What this means is EJ Dionne has grasped something but not done the real background research that would provide him with a basis in American culture that would improve his argument. If he had done the real research necessary he would understand the importance of regeneration through regression narratives that are the basis of so much of the schizmogenesis that predominates in American politics. The oppositional assertions of victimization by both sides feeds the increasing schizmogenesis that dominates politics.
Part 2 (because the DR show puts a limit on the number of characters per post. A good way to edit serious comment even when they say they are about serious conversation). E J Dionne asserts that the hyper individualism of the tea party is a problem but his assertion ignores the American cultural assertion of individualism of the left and way over emphasizes a communitarianism on the left. The left is as individualistic as the right, as that is the basis of American culture. Both sides assert that it is about individuals work and whether they receive just compensation for that work. Both sides also assert that it is about the temptations that abound in American culture and what should the consequences of the choices to resist or fall into that temptation should be. Douthat is a smart guy and knows that the right wing religious assertion that any and all temptations extant in American culture should be rendered illegal as in a theocracy, is the downfall of the Republican party and conservatism, but he will not admit that fundamental truth. He dances. Dionne refuses to admit that the left is resistant to the assertions of the right that the choices Americans have be limited and thus the choice of individuals to make good choices be taken away. Dionne, like Dothat is a hack.
Part 3. Which is why when you create a hackery you get ideological self-serving eggs laid by same. Unfortunately too many people who “host” multi-media shows do not do the necessary work to understand the issues or the works of those they have on. Brian Lamb of booknotes fame, did the work, he read the books and thus could ask intelligent informed questions of his guests. Unfortunately the standard he set is not met on this show. Diane Rehm refuses to do the serious work of reading such as Richard Slotkin’s trilogy on American culture and thus continues to have people on her show saying things that have no real basis in an understanding of American culture. This is radio malpractice. And it is irritating. It is more than irritating, it is infuriating. DR is engaging in propaganda. When you do not take the time and trouble to understand what you are talking about, even with guests, then you are not serving your public. DR do the work. Read the material on individualism. Try to understand the power of regression through regeneration narratives (and thus help to understand your own narrative and its appeal) and then begin to present a radio show the truly analyzes American culture and thus can address them.
As someone with a VERY small business i.e. two employees besides myself, I found NotAntiGovernment's comments laughable (having to hiring an HR expert and a lawyer to manage the regulations foisted on us by Govermnent!?). Since no-one in the Radical Right (is there any other type?) will EVER read the New York Times, preferring instead Faux News/Fairly Unbalanced or The Wall Street Jolly, they cannot see just how far right Ross Douthat is and how he is driven by his undying love for the Catholic Church and his lurid love for the Bishops.
One of the most irritating things about the last 10 - 12 years is the lie that there are radicals "on both sides". They're aren't. The right has a virtual monopoly on lack of cooperation, hate of minorities, hate of freedoms, and complete slavery to the .0001%.
FINALLY I loved the Freudian slip (or was it naievete or his COMPLETE and total ignorance) that made Ross, the voice of the Radical Right so willingly chose ignorance/hate/fear ignoring and ceding respect/restraint/responsibility to EJ, Dionne. Sums everything up, doesn't it?
and yet you didn't mention the Social Security that was stolen by Congress. You seem to only mention that which might support your argument. This is a fallacy, to say the least.
Listening to the end of the show I note that Ross wants us to subscribe to "National Affairs". Funny. It's driven by
Contributing Editors
Matthew Continetti --- author of the simply ridiculously titled and daft book "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" which should have been called "The Persecution of the American People and all Civilized People by Sarah Palin"
Adam Keiper: check him out here:
http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.69/scholar.asp
and Reihan Salam who literally defines ANGRY HATING/HATEFUL RADICAL RIGHT. Google him if you don't believe me.
To add insult to injury, the Publication Committee include Bill Kristol, one of the architects of the Sarah Palin experience.
As with any political partisan, the conclusion of this new book was written in the mind of the author long before the pen hit the paper. The analysis is a product of a preconceived conclusion. It's a worthless piece of fish wrap that other liberal hacks might find interesting but anyone else with an ounce of objectivity would dismiss as garbage.
Martyn wrot
"One of the most irritating things about the last 10 - 12 years is the lie that there are radicals "on both sides". They're aren't. The right has a virtual monopoly on lack of cooperation, hate of minorities, hate of freedoms, and complete slavery to the .0001%"
A complete lack of knowledge or shall I say ignorance. Wish you could of been in my city 2 -3 years ago and seen the minorities in front of the Alamo cheering on the Tea Party.
MtnWoman wrote:
"and yet you didn't mention the Social Security that was stolen by Congress. You seem to only mention that which might support your argument. This is a fallacy, to say the least."
The year was 1966 to help pay for the Vietnam War and the "Great Society" which turn out to be wasted tax money. Could of been done better with the non profits and at less cost.
Martyn says:
"Since no-one in the Radical Right (is there any other type?) will EVER read the New York Times, preferring instead Faux News/Fairly Unbalanced or The Wall Street Jolly, they cannot see just how far right Ross Douthat is and how he is driven by his undying love for the Catholic Church and his lurid love for the Bishops."
What makes Fox News useful is comments like these. I seldom watch any TV, let alone Fox.
But Fox is there, every day, sticking their finger in the eye of the left.
I don't care what they talk about on Fox, and I bet a lot of others don't either. What makes them useful is being a counterweight to the massive democrat media.
The New York Times has at least as much bias as Fox.
Whatever. After watching the behavior on the left during Bush's term, I don't care what means are used to oppose them. Use whatever is at hand. The left will say and do anything, and that is how they have to be fought.
Great show, I have already recommended to my University Chaplain whose Father was Nixon's Barber.
I hope DRshow will do me the favor of having both Dionne and Douthat take a look at these comments; hoping they are already doing so.
During the program I couldn't help channelling Tom Brokaw, David Halberstam and Frye Gaillard's esteemed Marshall Frady to see what he would make of all this.
Frady wrote at one point and I badly paraphrase, with all its faults the SBC with decent leadership grovelled toward being part of the glu that kept an ungainly American Experiment from more chaos than was evident in the 60's.
The right wing strategy to bring it to the Tea Party Camp has been disastrous for the Southeast in particular and is now infecting the whole nation.
In the 80's the Southern Baptist Convention became the devil's playground of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove through liaison staffers of Jesse Helms and Bush 41 Houston friend Paul Pressler.
I have made public a letter at History and Heritage discussion site of baptistlife.com/forums of Ellen Rosenberg, an 88 author who examined the Southern Baptist from perspective of a secular Jewish anthropologist persuasion.
Her thoughts I am convinced are a big piece of the puzzle Dionne and Douthat are groping for and I commend them to her; as well as a conversattion with Eleanor Clift's Newsweek friend Doug Cumming, now a proff and Washington and Lee; Cumming a student of Frady.
Great show; hope they take it on the road. I don't speak for Frady and my alma mater, Furman, in Upstate S.C. but would love for Furman to bring this conversation to campus this October.
Arkus Duntov on May 29, 2012 @ 9:01 pm wrote: “the words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the obvious intent to limit federal control over our lives and to provide an atmosphere for personal freedom and initiative to thrive.
PART ONE
As is usual with ideologues (of whatever side of the political spectrum) you provide plenty of conclusory utterances, but little of either fact or reason to back up your statements. (And, speaking of “emotionalism”, outbursts like yours are filled with them.)
The Declaration demonstrates no intent to limit “control over our lives” by any government, State or Federal. To the contrary, the only thing that document declares is that governments are formed to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that they derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” (in other words: majority rule). Not one word there of limiting the power of government to do just that (except, of course, by said consent).
As to the Constitution, you are confusing and conflating two entirely different aspects of it: Federalism and individual rights.
Federalism is mainly concerned with the division of power between the State and Federal governments. It was mostly the product of jealousy by the States, which feared loss of power to the national government. Yes, there was some rhetoric about “local control”, the idea that the governments “nearest to the people” (i.e.: the States) would better protect freedom, but you won’t find a word of that in the Constitution itself, and history has demonstrated how false that notion was.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In the years leading up to the Civil War, Southern States trampled on many rights we take for granted, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to keep and bear arms. The 14th Amendment was added precisely to make the Federal government guarantee those rights against State encroachment.
In short, you are trying to write either the Laissez-Faire form of Capitalism, or Libertarianism, into the Constitution. Neither belongs there.
Arkus Duntov on May 29, 2012 @ 9:01 pm wrote: “He is blind to the fact the federal government has been operating outside the original intent of the Constitution for at least 100 years.”
Care to provide some proof of both that alleged “intent”, and of how it has been violated?
Arkus Duntov on May 29, 2012 @ 9:01 pm wrote: “Liberal democrat initiatives have always won out in the arena of political discourse as evidenced by the debt and deficit crisis we now face..”
Better look at the facts again, sir. Neither the national debt, nor the deficit, let alone the “crisis” are the exclusive product of “Liberal democrat initiatives”.
During his Administration, Reagan increased spending by 57%, and the deficit by 97%. Bush the First, increased spending by 21%, and the deficit by 90%. Bush the Second increased spending by 60%, and the deficit by over 458%. None of them were either Liberals or Democrats.
(The one Democratic President during that period, Clinton, increased spending by 27%, but decreased the deficit by 193%. The difference? He didn’t believe in “voodoo economics” like the other three did.)
And, of course, our current crisis began under Bush the Second, as a result of his economic policies of deregulation. But hey, let’s drink both brands of poison again!
(And before you say it, yes, I’m happy to give Republicans part of the credit for Clinton’s results, as long as you remember the deficit started to decline during his first two years, before they gained control of Congress.)
Source: The World Almanac of 2010, page 63.
Arkus Duntov on May 29, 2012 @ 9:01 pm wrote: “It is obvious if you can look past the emotions and false good intentions one can only come to the conclusion that compromise with the left is impossible.”
The only correct statement you made in your entire tirade is that the Republi-Cons (as usual) refuse any compromise, because for them that word means “capitulation”.
Shared sacrifice? No!
$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases? No!
$10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases? No!
They reject all of it, and insist their way is the only way (and then falsely accuse the “other side” of what they are guilty of).
I doubt ideologues like you will “see the light” even if you get your way, and the result is yet another Great Recession (like the one we’re starting to come out of, created by right-wing policies), or even (heaven help us) a second Great Depression - caused (like the first) by those same policies.!
mnemecek on May 30, 2012 @ 8:12 am wrote: “Teece Bowman . . . . In the vast majority of your many arguments, I find a complete lack of reasoned discourse. Meerly regurgitating more government, steal from the people that have saved, and give freely to thoose unwilling to do what is required to succeed, is not reasoning it is socialism possibly the most unreasonable form of economy the world has ever known.”
PART ONE
While I agree with much of your criticism of Teece, your response is no better. Merely parroting Republi-Con rhetoric (without fact or reason) is similar to what Teece does.
No one is advocating “more government” as the simple answer to all our problems. Some things need to be regulated, others do not. Wisdom consists of identifying the differences, not simply screaming for “small government”.
Nor is anyone advocating “stealing” from “people that have saved”. Taxes aren’t theft, anymore than property is theft. Is it “stealing” to pay for the Police, the Fire Departments, the Sanitation Departments, the FBI, the SEC, the EPA, the National Parks, the Military, etc.?
No.
Nor is anyone advocating we “give freely” to anyone. There are standards imposed on social programs to insure the truly needy receive their benefit. And many social programs also benefit those “noble” savers you invoke.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Furthermore, your arrogant assumption that the needy (or the beneficiaries of social programs) are all “those unwilling to do what is required to succeed” is almost beneath contempt. Where is your proof? Were those “benefited” by Federal Disaster Aid (after Katrina) “guilty” of what befell them? Is someone who lost their jobs because of downsizing (after their pension funds had been raided by corporate management) “guilty”? What of people struck down with medical disasters who cannot afford life saving treatments? Should they just be left to die because they were “unwilling” (rather than unable) to do what would help them “succeed” in surviving?!
And finally, Socialism is the doctrine which holds that all property, and all means of production should be held in common. Being for social programs doesn’t make one a Socialist.
(Oh, and there is a difference between Socialism and Communism. But I don’t expect a parrot to understand that.)