Whether it be stocks and bonds, politics, or philosophy, contrarians are some of history's most notable figures, like Sigmund Freud, Galileo, and FDR. So, if contrarians are sometimes so valuable, how does one tell them apart from the frauds? There are guides to determine when its time to follow the contrarian, with a good chance of being ahead of the crowd. Homework is required, however.
One of the best examples of fruitful contrarian behavior can be found in the stock and bond markets. In today's markets, individuals as well as corporations are players in the markets. The host of individuals for the most part, are followers. The market goes up, some folks accrue wealth while it is, and with this 'proof', the crowd follows (all too often, too late to repeat the performance of the contrarian who bought when the markets were at or near their bottom, (or sold when the markets were at their top).
In the markets however, the successful contrarians are not taking contrary positions in the hope of luck visiting their action. They do their homework, create for themselves forecasts based on the best available evidence to maximize the potential of their action, and then they play the averages. By, 'play the averages', I mean simply, that they then rely upon something unforeseen not occurring to derail their forecast. In other words, luck. But, like 7 card stud poker, there is always an element of luck, but, those who make their living at the game, exercise a wealth of expertise and knowledge in probability and statistics and their study of human behavior at the card table, just as the contrarian investor does in the market exchanges. More often than not, their forecasts will prove fruitful.
Cosmological mathematicians are working in this same arena in their attempts to explain the Big Bang theory, infinity in Einstein's equation, and the physics of black holes, for which their currently is no understanding, or provable explanation. They are creating mystical mathematical equations to introduce bizarre concepts like Dark Energy, Dark matter, and Membrane universes (branes), none of which are observable, measurable, or in fact, exist as far as we know, except in their equations. But, these mathematical concepts are not fancies pulled from dream states. If one accepts, as astro-physics people do, that the universe is knowable due to laws and rules governing its events, which history has demonstrated repeatedly, then finding mathematical expressions that explain events, has at least some chance of being proved correct. If observable predictive proof is achieved that such an explanation works, then the likelihood the concept is correct, increases dramatically.
I love the TV series, House, M.D., because the show is all about discovering the unknown via medical diagnostics, with the human element of fallibility thrown into the mix. And like all discovery, risks of being wrong are taken, rigors of logic, experience, and known fact are heavily relied upon, and the contrarian position often proves to be the right diagnosis due to Dr. House's gift for creative insight, predicated upon the rigors of logic, experience, and known fact, when those alone fall short. Adhering to the process of elimination and Occam's Razor, the chances of discovering the correct diagnosis are vastly improved, though never guaranteed, especially, in time to save the patient. Luck is enhanced by minimizing reliance upon it.
The successful Contrarian is engaged in precisely this kind of behavior, enhancing luck by minimizing reliance upon it. Contrarians will be wrong, but, the successful ones will be correct more times than not, and that is what turns contrarians into leaders, whose actions others follow; (and where timing is crucial, too often, too late.)
Several contrary positions are worth noting today in America. The majority of the public believes our economy is going to fail, according to polls. It certainly will, if Republicans win the day in preventing the debt ceiling from rising in the short term. The economy will fail if our nation's lenders are not provided a credible plan soon, for ending our deficits and eventually bringing down our national debt in the foreseeable future. The economy will fail if the now even larger, 'Too Big To Fail Banks' repeat their performance of ignoring and refusing oversight and regulation regarding capital requirements, default swaps, and overextending their borrowing.
But, how likely are any of these to actually occur? Americans were pretty much oblivious to Islamic terrorism until 9/11/2001. Once disaster strikes, or, becomes obvious to occur, Americans become very responsive. Americans wanted no part in Japan's and Germany's expansion in the 1930's. However, Americans became the victors in the war against those nations once Pearl Harbor had been bombed. So, again, I ask: How likely are these above mentioned economic disasters to occur?
Nearly everyone in a position to make a decision on the Debt Ceiling is acutely aware of the economic disaster that would ensue if they failed to raise our government's debt ceiling, and thus avert default on our interest payments to lenders, or divert all federal revenues to those interest payments and military and halt nearly all other government functions. These decision makers have their own wealth and savings invested in our economy. How likely is it that these decision makers will refuse to raise the debt ceiling?
Nearly all our decision makers and a majority of Americans are now aware of how unregulated greed governed the actions of the large investment banks, AIG, mortgage companies, and market derivatives (credit default swaps), crippling our economy, and costing 10's of millions of Americans their jobs, wiping out 100's of billions in 401k savings plans, pension plans, and small business owner savings. How successful are Republicans likely to be in preventing legislation to oversee and regulate these large financial corporation's behavior going forward?
To both of these questions, my answer is, not very likely. That makes me a contrarian relative to popular opinion. On the third question however, I am still reluctant to take a contrarian position precisely because the evidence, logic, and historical data don't support it.
That question is on whether our Congress can provide lenders with a credible plan to eliminate our deficits without destroying our economy, and eventually buying down our government debt. Remove politics from the equation, and accomplishing this task is very doable. But, one cannot remove politics from the Congress anymore than one can remove the galaxies from our universe. And the politics are very simple, and simply in the way.
Republicans are absolutely dependent upon the corporate, business, and wealthiest individual's contributions and dictates to win elections. Without the donations from these entities, the Republicans could not win a spitting contest with a road kill deer. The Republican Party constituents are all minorities. The wealthiest in America are a minority. The corporations are a minority. The business community is a minority. The right wing evangelical groups are a minority. The rural libertarians are a minority. If all of them voted, they would still be hopelessly outnumbered by the other 200 million Americans.
Republicans, therefore, are absolutely dependent upon the donations and contributions of these wealthier minorities to raise the money to buy the expertise in marketing and advertising and sophistry, to convince a sizable portion of their non-constituents to vote for them (the independent voting block). Hence, the Republican's policies must endorse the wishes and whims of the corporations, business community, and wealthiest Americans like the Koch Brothers, in legislation.
And there's the obstacle to passing legislation that would gradually eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt without destroying the economy for the rest of Americans. If the economy fails, the corporations will simply pursue their profit motive overseas. If the economy fails, the Koch Bros. billions in wealth will buy them dozens of estates in Europe, S. America, and New Zealand. If the economy fails due to the greed factor, the successfully greedy can afford to relocate to other economies. The wishes and whims therefore, of the corporations and wealthiest do not fear an economic collapse due to the failure of the middle class to participate as consumers. Corporate greed is focused on this quarter's and this year's profits, exclusively with little to no regard for future economic stability. This is intrinsic in shareholder, board of directors psychology.
So, as long as the Republicans control one House of Congress or the White House, developing and passing a plan to eliminate deficits over the next 10 to 15 years without destroying the consumer middle class's ability to participate in this economy, is highly unlikely. And the Democratic Party lacks the unified platform and adherence to that platform, to prevent Republicans from potentially controlling some part of the federal government. Democrats have their conservatives who will vote with Republicans on these issues, and far Left liberals who would gut our capitalism in the name of the consumer middle class, which alienates the business communities and many of the wealthiest who contribute to political campaigns.
I want to be a contrarian on this issue of whether or not our Congress will pass a plan to reassure our creditors in time to save our economy as the rest of this decade unfolds. But, I cannot find the evidence, the historical record, or the logic to support taking a position in opposition to the majority of Americans polled, who believe are economy is headed for defeat. If I am overlooking something, I would greatly appreciate your insights that might help me become a contrarian on this issue.
The stock markets are down, a correction is underway, but, the economic data portends an economic boost for the Fall and next year. Having gotten out of the markets in May, I am now taking the Contrarian position of buying into the markets a bit more with each big drop. This is how contrarians succeed. They do their homework and minimize reliance on luck and ignorance. Moving against the crowd takes effort, but, the most successful are rarely found in the midst of the crowd going in the other direction.
22 Comments
David, I would disagree on a couple of points in this article. One of which is your statement that "nearly everyone in a position to make a decision on the Debt Ceiling is acutely aware of the economic disaster that would ensue if they failed to raise our government's debt ceiling;" this, I feel, is sadly incorrect. Excluding the fact that many Republicans, most notably Michelle Bachmann, have questioned the possibly of global economic collapse (following a default on credit), I would say that many Republicans do not have a grasp of basic economic structure and practice. In this case, I would argue that Republicans are ignorant and foolish rather than deliberately advocating economic catastrophe.
Concerning your discussion of governmental regulation of business, I would also say that Republicans have been very successful in diverting attention from the economic policies of the Bush Administration and focusing the American people (at least in strong minority) on the "job-killing" nature of regulation. It appears very easy for Republicans to prevent regulatory legislation from passing, as they, for instance, were nearly successful in stripping the regulatory powers of the EPA during talks of a government shutdown. I would also stipulate that they have successfully turned direct economic thought from unemployment and underemployment to the deficit and debt, a sad but important fact that Obama will have to deal with.
I will report to you though, David, that our economy is not headed for collapse, just as the government wasn't ever going to shutdown. As you convincingly illustrated, Republicans are concerned primarily with controlling power in government, and the political backlash of allowing the government to default is far too great. Americans are pessimistic on the economy because Republicans have made them so. There is nothing wrong with deficit spending in order to climb out of a recession, especially one as deep as our most recent. In the end I have faith, even amidst political turmoil, that the economic recovery will continue. The country (and the economy) are most certainly heading in the right direction, contrary to what most American believe.
Alexander,
Thanks for the comments. We arrive close to the same place, with a strong desire to remain optimistic.
Yes, the conservative talking heads have convinced a majority of public opinion that they should be hoarding cash, hunkering down, and preparing for the worst, which is, in itself, slowing the economic recovery and growth. But, that is a very predictable outcome of the political situation for Republicans. They can't hope to win elections if the economy is recovering and looking stronger in the future.
You are right, that deficit spending is the way out of a recession and a sluggish economy. Republicans are right that continuous deficit spending and growth in the debt will kill our economy. The dilemma for Republicans is simple: Do they want to sacrifice their own financial well being for political gain, or relinquish political current tactics and work with Democrats to salvage their financial well being? Unfortunately, Republicans don't appear to be viewing the reality in this way.
What they appear to be adopting as their rationale is this: "Let the economy remain difficult for voters and then when voters resurrect the GOP to majority control of government, Republicans will again feed at the public trough to enhance their financial well being, as they did during the Bush II years."
That is truly a prescription for economic failure, as this economy will not recover without a large and strong middle class consumer. And all of Republican's policy prescriptions will have the effect of weakening the middle class' participation as consumers while widening the wealth gap.
Greece would not be in the situation it is, if nearly half of the citizenry had paid their taxes. Tax dodging and cuts became the national pasttime in Greece, and now all in Greece are paying an enormous price for such folly. Republicans hold the position of the Greeks who brought their economy down around their heads. If Americans were better educated and more vested in their government and policies, Republicans would never get away with such tactics. But, an ignorant public is far more malleable to the wiles of politicians than an informed and invested public. Hence Republican's thrust to decrease spending on education at the federal and State levels.
Big picture is not so optimistic.
David,
I disagree with you on a couple of points. The first is your contention (in line with right-wing talking points, not to be insulting) that deficit spending and debt are economically toxic, especially during a recovery. In general, deficit spending is O.K., as it represents a literal investment in our infrastructure, education, etc. Additionally, during a recovery one wants to invest more money, take infrastructure for instance, some would say that infrastructure spending is not stimulative because for every several million dollars the government spends, it employs a mere few dozen construction workers. But of course, this a childish look at a convoluted issue. Infrastructure spending provides money to construction companies, who use the money not only to employ workers, but to buy supplies like wood and concrete (stimulating those respective markets) and to buy and rent equipment. In this case, the government's money literally "trickles" down through companies and businesses. In addition, one would want to stimulate these markets and invest in the infrastructure when prices and interest rates are lowest (following a recession.)
The investments of the stimulus package (which should've been larger and shouldn't have contained so many tax cuts) were vital to the future of America. I would argue that the United States should continue to stimulate the economy in these ways until unemployment drops substantially. It is undeniably idiotic to attempt to pay off the national debt (or close the deficit) while the unemployment rate is 9.1%. Like a true liberal, I'll say that we need more spending.
Secondly, I don't believe that a Republican's thinking is as straightforward and monstrous as you seem to imply. It seems that by the end of your comment you say that Republicans are cutting education because they need an uneducated public to keep electing them. I don't believe that's the case; it's far too sinister. They cut education because those affected aren't the part of their constituency that they care about, because they aren't rich. You're right to say that Republicans work actively for about 3% of the population, and that the 45% of voters that consistently vote Republican are voting against their economic and social interests, but it's quite a statement to say that Republicans are trying to dumb down the public.
I've always said this: there is a legitimate conservative opinion out there, it might differ from mine, but it is legitimate. However, at this point, Republicans (not conservatives) don't represent that opinion, they are far more radical.
But, I don't think the average Republican believes (or knows) he's wrong, I believe that they think (just as I think oppositely) that the people that elect them are smarter than the people that don't. Although they are preoccupied by power, I think Republicans actually believe in their platform, I don't believe that they're just really good actors.
I don’t know if I have the keystrokes in me to respond to this one David. But, lemme say this about that!!
A true contrarian might be identified as to being an expert in their field and being long on broad experience. For example, Palin isn’t seen as a contrarian re the presidential elections as she is seen as having no real world business experience, while Mitt Romney is seen as more contrarian as he is seen, by some, as having wide and long experience in business, thus better able to handle the US economy as president. As an aside, IMO, Romney has no other experience than buying up legacy equipment, from plants that were heading overseas, and selling it to the Chinese. To some that qualifies him to run circles around Geithner, Summars and similar.
To be a contrarian in the stock market you would need to have worked for some trading firm for several years, have plentiful financial contacts in the corporate and privy to as much insider information as you can lay your hands on. For example, if a company in Asia gets a big order for steel rivets that are only used in mfctring aircraft you need an insider to tell you that and another insider to tell you who is going to build the aircraft and so on. And, you need to know this before many others come across the same info. Luck, sure is not part of the equation.
I can’t hang in there with dark hole theory but any new research requires a contrarian viewpoint to some degree. For example, some research outfit is looking to grow future meat products by taking stem cells from a choice pork loin and sort of incubating and feeding it until he grows to about hamburger size and then sending that little piggy to market. How contrarian is that? A good idea since we kill and process some 54B living critters yearly for food while putrifying our air and streams.
I agree the country is usually slo to get off the blocks but get some going when we do come around. However, I believe the debt ceiling thing is not so serious at the moment but does need to be addressed. I go back to this thing of Corpocracy planned globalisation. In order for the US and several EU countries to effectively compete in a global economy the playing field has to be somewhat level. The Corpocracy has spent the last 30 years harmonizing trade, security, immigration, and administration laws around the world. The NAU was one attempt that didn’t quite fly, but still in wings. Over the last 10 years the US economy has doubled while wages have decreased or stagnated. And, 30M new workers have joined the work force while no additional jobs have been created. Those facts should resonant with some people. Didn’t just happen. Look how hard the Corpocracy fights to keep immigrants coming ashore while in the New Hampshire debate there was not a question asked, nor a position offered on China, debt, jobs or immigration. Same as the previous primaries in 08. In 08 the repub’s were rejected because they ‘couldn’t create jobs’. Now, Obama may be rejected for the same reason. But, the Corpocracy, and their game plan will remain.
IMO, we are just going through one more well orchestrated phase in getting us ready to compete in the globalised economy. Maybe, a double dip or multiple dips are part of the plan. The piece of data to look for as to when the ‘bad economic times’ will begin to improve is when the average US worker wages have fallen to somewhere between minimum wage and $10/hr. Then US workers will be allowed to ‘go forth and subsist’ along with most of the world.
I think you lean heavily on the repub’s in taking corporate donations, David. I agree, they do, but, it needs to be balanced in that in 08 Obama received some $800M for his war chest, mostly from large donors. In 12 he is expected to receive $1B and was just recently rounded by the media for bringing these large donors into the WH for a social. And, we just had Level 3 corporation pony up $13M for Obama while their head man received a cushy position in the Executive.
I think you and I both agree, David, that we aren’t governed by dem and rep representatives but rather, we are ruled by Corpocracy. In that sense, it doesn’t matter who we vote in, the outcome will be whatever the Corpocracy deems it to be.
But, what with a little Greece in our future, you are quite the contrarian if you are willing to venture real money in stocks these days, IMO.
However the quintessential contrarian would be, IMO, the one who advocates for a new 3rd party with a different political attitude - - -
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Alexander,
You said: "The first is your contention (in line with right-wing talking points, not to be insulting) that deficit spending and debt are economically toxic, especially during a recovery."
Does it matter where the truth comes from, the Left or Right? It is still the truth. And that truth is, as I wrote, that our economy will collapse if we don't bring deficits and debt under control. I agree with you and others, that killing today's economy with deficit elimination measures is no way to bolster the economy of tomorrow. However, America is no longer a fledgling country, and we have to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. Other than political reasons, there is no reason we cannot BOTH reduce deficits and invest in the recovery of today's economy at the same time.
The Republicans are correct, and most Democrats on the Hill agree with them, that our deficits and absence of reforms in entitlement cost increases are economic killers. Where the Republicans are wrong, is in posing the problem as a yes or no issue, in other words, that must end deficits all at once and this year. What our lenders require is assurance that we have the political will and a plan to prevent that default that lies on our future's horizon.
You wrote: "It seems that by the end of your comment you say that Republicans are cutting education because they need an uneducated public to keep electing them. I don't believe that's the case; it's far too sinister."
You don't have to believe it. But, the record of decline in our education in America for K-12 over the last 30 years remains intact whether you believe it or not. The fact is, education is controlled in the vast proportion by elected (political) school board members, and Republicans began in the Reagan years to quietly gain control of vastly greater numbers of America's school boards, and as politicians, their record of declining education quality is just that, a matter of record. They opposed 'liberal' education and that broad liberal education which marked the best of American schools in the 1970's has been diminished continuously since the 1980's.
I live in Texas where the State's Republican School Board controls the Texas textBook industry which supplies K-12 text books to a host of other states. And they have been rewriting the science and history textbooks to reflect their conservative agenda to include Creationism and deemphaszing the science of evolution and biological sciences, as well as rewriting the history of America to reflect well upon Republicans like Nixon, and vastly overestimating the accomplishments of figures like Reagan (single handedly having ended the Cold War with Russia.)
Take students and teach them one thing in schools in a culture where the truth is omnipresent in the media and contradicts what they learned in school, and you breed citizens too confused to question authority, which is precisely what Republicans want of their constituents, to not question their authority. Voila! You end up with the GOP controlled by the Tea Party, ignorant of economics, ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of science, and demanding that we return to the 17th century when slavery was Constitutional and women and minorities did not have the vote.
Sorry, Alexander, but your protest on this issue lacks an accurate history of the decline in our educational quality and how that came to be. It was deliberate. The 1960's cultural revolution born in our colleges and quickly taken up by our high schools scared the bejeezus out of Conservatives, both Democrat and Republican. The conservative Democrats left the Democratic Party for the GOP, and the GOP has been countering the seeds of questioning authority in our school systems ever since.
Questioning authority is the heart of both science and democracy. Hence, both our education and political system have been diminishing in quality, power, and truth, ever since.
The contrarian is one who identifies turns of events before the crowd does, and positions them self advantageously for that turn of events. Literally, A person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
It is born out of technical analysis of tops and bottoms in the markets and positioning for those tops and bottoms before the rest of the market players do.
One cannot call the crowd a contrarian, by definition.
That said, yes, you and I are on the same page regarding the real reins of control lying with wealth and corporations, regardless of Party, on a host of issues. That said, there are substantive differences between the Democratic Party and GOP on economics, the social contract with government, and the role of government in the affairs of the nation and its future. The Tea Party having taken over the GOP, those differences are now widening as never before. Every word coming out of Republican Presidential candidates or hopefuls about Obama is pure deception and lying. And they have no shame or embarrassment about it. Weiner's shame and embarrassment have caused his resignation. I can't think of a starker example of the difference between the two parties. Vitter was rallied behind by the GOP in his defense, and he actually broke laws.
There is a dramatic difference between the two parties today, even though, as you say, on the bribery front with wealth and corporations, it is more difficult to find much difference at all. That said, there are differences. Democrats have not succumbed to Wall St. where regulation and oversight are concerned, I give you the Dodd-Franks legislation of Wall St. Banks, as one example, and the attempt to oversee and regulate the banks that created this Great Recession are being fought tooth and nail by nearly every Republican in the Congress with only very few exceptions. There are differences, and they are not trivial, anymore.
David,
I wasn't implying that what you were saying (about deficit reduction) was incorrect because "it came from the Right," I was noting that the idea originated with Republicans and that they've convinced the majority of Americans that cutting spending will produce employment; it won't. I stand by my statement that we cannot begin to cut spending until the economic recovery has taken effect. Now of course, I do support removing some of the ludicrous ways in which our money is spent, such as the Bush tax cuts, tax breaks for oil companies or the enormous defense budget (for wars, etc.) But the money saved from ending those enterprises should be reinvested into the economy. Many economists, some of them very notable (such as Paul Krugman) have argued that the stimulus package should've been twice as large and that deficits of 1 trillion dollars are essential for a recovery of this magnitude.
To continue, I too live in Texas and I am very aware of the "liberties" that the Texas Board of Education has taken regarding science and history. I do see your point and I do understand it, but I do not believe, as you imply, that every single Republican (more or less) that holds office knows that their positions are wrong or anti-scientific. These are simply their beliefs that the are over-emphasizing. They truly believe in creationism and likely feel a moral obligation to spread that belief throughout school communities. They truly believe in the accomplishments of Reagan and are just squashing what they see as a liberal bias against him and others. Now I do not dispute that some of the "smarter" and less ethical Republicans (a minority however) have actively pursued this, but to say that this is one giant conspiracy to continue controlling power on every level of government is to dismiss the true beliefs of the vast majority of Republican office-holders.
There is no doubt that there are many "fake" Republicans (fake meaning to espouse beliefs that they don't have, they are still right-of-center) out there: Newt Gingrich will say anything to make news and Mitt Romney is backing away from his good policies because they are liberal, for instance. But you can't tell me that Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum don't believe what they say. For every Republican you point out that is fake, I can point out two that are real. As I said earlier, I don't believe these people are just great actors.
Good discussion. I agree that we HAVE to spend to stimulate the economy. Whether that is through FED stimulus or other means, such as a massive investment in infrastructure, that MUST be balanced through raising taxes on the wealthy, closing loopholes, raising capital gains taxes, and through reform of entitlements. The one thing Keynes got right was about aggregates and money supply as they are keys to making a macro economy function. America has no problem producing and has the largest middle class (though that is eroding)which is a market that has disposable income and spends it. Part of the solution to deficit reduction is to grow the economy. We are a colonial power and can use this to aid our economy.
China still has a very thin middle class concentrated along it's eastern coast. The vast majority of China is dirt poor. We can leverage our markets to our advantage. Something we do poorly today. A redistribution of wealth will need to occur and be fought tooth and nail. Some degree of wealth MUST be redistributed to the middle class. America's future wealth is in it's people and education. The proper use of trade agreements and protecting markets is key to this. We should not repeat Smoot-Hawley, but we do need to look at whether markets serve us or others.
How does one keep a class of people down? In America's history, blacks were kept down by denying them education. Women are kept down across the globe, by denying them education. Don't discount the Republican plan at denying education to the masses. In Texas, the introduction of religious rhetoric into education, is part and parcel of their political ambitions. It is key in using the rhetoric they sell to gain power.
One thing Obama is failing to do is to focus attention of the public on a positive message of recovery. A campaign to rebuild the power grid to accomodate natural gas, solar and wind (you were right about nuclear, David)could be one way to refocus America.
I want to add the idea that the Republican party is currently promoting is American exceptionalism. The problem is that this notion was often based in a racist culture. Make no mistake, Republicans believe in exceptionalism, they just don't believe everyone is exceptional. They are, you aren't.
Greg,
I don't discount the Republican plan for public education (I don't know if you were referring to me). But look at the platform they run on; one of small, limited government. I see a majority of Republicans that don't want to dumb-down the public, but want to make a public school system private. These are romantic ideas of isolation from governmental interference that are simply unrealistic in a country of three hundred million and an economy of sixty trillion dollars. And in my opinion, the introduction of anti-historical and anti-scientific ideas into public schools is a product of ignorance, not a conspiracy. The rising "stupidity" of Americans is not the goal, it's the side effect.
On the economy, I agree completely, I don't understand how the phrase "redistribution of wealth" became a bad or controversial idea. Every single middle or poorer class Republican (the vast majority of them) that denounces or votes against this redistribution is voting directly against their economic interests. Once again, it's the romantic and fanciful idea that anyone in America could become rich tomorrow, and the government shouldn't "punish" people for being successful.
Republican (not conservative, but the party) ideas are childish and present an enormous hurdle for liberals.
Alexander,
I DO think it is conspiratorial. The attempts to rewrite history and make science equivalent to religious mythology are not ignorance, it is intentional coercion of young people. The creation of private schools means a return to segregation and exclusion of the masses. The idea of American exceptionalism is that white old men are exceptional and should lead the mixed races, ethnics and women. It's a very old idea. The people pushing this aren't ignorant, they want an easy to manipulate mass audience. They are the real American Taliban.
Greg,
It is quite an incredible step to compare Republicans to the Taliban. I think it demonstrates a serious lack of judgment on your part. Republicans may have come into dominate power by promoting racism (through the Southern Strategy, etc.), and there is no doubt that much of the criticism directed toward President Obama is race-based, however a great many Republicans do believe in equality and American (not white or male) exceptionalism.
I don't understand this argument. There are plenty of women (not so many minorities, but some) that are Republican and promote the very same product as the others. According to your assessment, there ought to be nothing but white men involved in the politics of the party. Why is this not the case? Who is in the conspiracy and who isn't? It doesn't make sense.
When I speak of their ignorance, I refer to the dismissive and over-looking nature of their platform, which cherry-picks information and ignores fact. But this is not done with the intent of returning the country to a state of segregation and inequality. They are ignorant of other cultures or belief systems when they push for religion in government and schools. They are ignorant of other viewpoints and in many cases facts when they rewrite history textbooks. Now to a certain extent, David's viewpoint I think is very understandable (and probably correct), I don't think Republicans are trying to dumb-down the American public but it's a very reasonable assertion to say that they may be attempting (just as Fox News attempts) to reshape the political mindset in order to stay in power. While I can agree with that opinion I don't agree that every Republican is actively that malevolent, just a minority, as many of them no doubt believe in what they read and promote.
Your position appears just as radical and deplorable as a Republican's; it's one of ignorance.
Alex said: "I see a majority of Republicans that don't want to dumb-down the public, but want to make a public school system private."
Yes, Alex, and the inescapable result of such a policy is that those with money in America, (mostly white) have access to the best education money can buy, and the rest of America either goes without education if they have no money, or lower tiered education for the non-wealthy by private companies offering discount bargain basement education. Net result, dumbing down the vast majority of future generation voters - which plays right into the Republican rhetoric and sophistry, that what is good for the wealthiest is great for the non-wealthy as well - (trickle down economics).
Alex said to Greg: "and there is no doubt that much of the criticism directed toward President Obama is race-based, however a great many Republicans do believe in equality and American (not white or male) exceptionalism."
I agree with you here, Alex. There is a moderate constituency of the GOP which reflect the values you describe above. However, the GOP is no longer controlled by, or striving to represent these moderate Republicans. I think there is a tectonic shift taking place in which the Tea Party - Social, religious right have taken over the Party machinery, and this has to result in the Republican moderates leaving the Party for Independent, third party, or Democratic Party voting status. This shift has been underway since 2003 with Bush's gratuitous deficits and unfounded war and nation building adventure in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Just this week, the Right Wing have forced a GOP (TBA) presidential candidate to backtrack on his comments about getting out of Afghanistan - Hunstman. Its quite a pickle for Republicans. The hard right controls the primaries and caucuses forcing out moderates, and choosing a candidate who cannot possibly appeal to the majority of voters in the general election. This is evident in presidential politics of the GOP since McCain ran, and will become ever more evident, even in the Congressional races, mark my words. When the GOP opened their arms wide to the Southern racist Democrats in the 1970's, they placed the Party on an inexorable path to remain the minority Party in American politics except for the South, some Midwestern and low population Western states.
There are some decades old decisions bearing fruit in both Parties. The Democrat's embrace of minorities bore fruit with the election of Obama, and now that America's demographics are changing to minorities as the majority, the electoral fruit for Democrats will be larger and sweeter, policies aside.
It is increasingly up to the Independents to act as a check and balance upon the Democratic Party, as the GOP, I believe, has seen its last majority with the 2010 House elections. They sealed their fate with their thinly veiled racist opposition to Obama, their adamant demand to end entitlements and privatize safety nets, and of course with the Tea Party Fundamentalist Religious Evangelical Right in control of their primary processes.
Greg said: "One thing Obama is failing to do is to focus attention of the public on a positive message of recovery."
Obama is not without his weaknesses as the head of his Party. His commitment to bi-partisanship has provided him popular personal support, but, cost him and his party enormously in public favorability for policies and legislative efforts. Obama's commitment to pragmatic political solutions has caused him to turn his back on very popular legislative agendas like the Public Option in health care reform, getting out of Afghanistan, and proactively sicking the Justice Department on unconstitutional powers and illegal acts provided by the last administration.
I know it is not Obama's intent, but, his actions have led, nonetheless, to the appearance that the Democratic Party is little better than the GOP where corruption, dual legal standards, and political reform are concerned. I voted for Obama, but, nothing Obama, and little the Democrats in Congress have done, have given me any good reason to consider joining the Democratic Party. So, and equal opportunity critic and Independent, I remain.
Alex,
My calling them the American Taliban is a reference to the call back to fundamentalism that the Taliban is famous for. There is an appeal of the Taliban to Afghans and Paks. In a similar fashion there is an appeal to many in America for the same kind of fundamentalism, that in particular, the right wing of the Republican party represents. The party isn't entirely uniform, but the appeal is to an old fantasy of an older more black and white time. Psychologically it is an appeal to a childhood memory that is distorted. Things were better/ easier then because mom and dad took care of things. The goal is to return us to a culture in which minorities, women, and gays did not intrude on their world. A world where they were kings and the rest were their subjects. Are they ignorant of this motive? Probably. Is their goal to subjugate others? Certainly. There is an arrogance of genetic superiority in the Republican party. While that also exists among many Democrats, as power is a heady brew, The Republican party has long ago surrendered any restrictions on duplicity and greed. The little people just don't get it, in their eyes. That's the crowd they appeal to, as well.
Perhaps the way I've stated it is hyperbolic, but I used the modifier American to distinguish them from the real Taliban.
There IS an intent to "re-educate" America much like Mao did. That doesn't mean I see them as Communists.
David,
The election will be between a Republican and Obama. Unless Republicans come up with a magical candidate, not yet known, I'll be voting for Obama. It will again come to, "the economy, stupid". Unless Obama becomes more Roosevelt-like, he may well lose.
David,
We agree most of the time. I don't believe that teaching factless history and anti-scientific ideas makes a generation smarter. I do believe it makes people far less inquisitive and learned, here's where we differ: I don't believe that the vast majority of the Republican Party (not all, but a majority) understand that these actions are detrimental. I believe that a small (but ever increasing) minority are "conspiring" to do this for power, but that the majority of Republicans actually believe what they teach. Now, you may be correct, this may be one giant conspiracy that everyone is in on, but I think it's far more likely that a couple of the most influential Republicans have given the orders and the rest are just marching to the beat of the drum, believing that they are marching toward glory instead of into the ground. Maybe I give the party more credit than it deserves, but I don't think so.
Later, you say; "There is a moderate constituency of the GOP which reflect the values you describe above..." If this "moderate constituency" (moderate in that they are ignorant of the overall "conspiracy" and/or that they are politically moderate) is the vast majority of the party, then you and I agree completely. In my opinion, many Republicans are beginning to be more radical because they are following party orders, not because every one of them understands the implications of those orders.
To continue addressing your response, I agree that Democrats can win more often having secured the minority vote. However, I don't know that I will subscribe to the idea that this House of Representatives will be the last power of a dying Republican Party, as there is no limit to how far stupidity and fear will go.
Moving on, I believe I can defend the actions of the Obama Administration and the actions of Congress regarding the three decisions you mentioned in your response to Greg (public option, etc.) Let me know if you want to talk about those as well.
Greg,
When you begin comparing people to the Taliban, just like Newt Gingrich comparing people to Nazis, you introduce an enormous divide into the political arena. These comparisons (because they are so fundamentally wrong) cannot be effective, people just stop listening. I've said as well that the Republicans appeal to a childish fantasy that is unrealistic (in this very conversation), but you are wrong to say that the majority wish to reintroduce segregation and destroy woman's rights. These views are just as radical, poorly worded and detrimental to the politics and the conversation as Gingrich's or Romney's assertions that Obama is a socialist or a communist or a fascist.
You and David are right about education "reform" and anti-scientific ideas, I've experienced these things first-hand, but you must choose your words wisely.
Maybe you're right, I don't think you are, but you're not going to convince anyone you're right if you radicalize your ideas and language.
Greg said: " It will again come to, "the economy, stupid". Unless Obama becomes more Roosevelt-like, he may well lose."
Well, that's an impossible order, since the Republicans have a lock step majority in the House, any FDR type actions would have to pass the House. I don't think he loses, though, if he makes the case to Americans that it is that Republican majority in the House that has stymied, time and again, a robust economic recovery. That's the case he has to make, and there is a multitude of evidence to support it.
Question is, will he make that Partisan case against Republicans, or defer critique for more a more bi-partisanship commitment? That is what his reelection hinges upon, in my opinion.
Alex said: "Now, you may be correct, this may be one giant conspiracy that everyone is in on, but I think it's far more likely that a couple of the most influential Republicans have given the orders and the rest are just marching to the beat of the drum, believing that they are marching toward glory instead of into the ground."
We differ only in our semantics. I don't view the GOP and its followers/supporters as separate entities, as your comment does. Yes, there are factions within the GOP, but, the Party is one entity, and it follows a leadership which has adopted a certain rhetoric and ideology from which no one associated with the Party can escape ownership of.
On the issue of moderate Republicans, I judge them by the age old wisdom, "know them by their actions not their words". They support the GOP which has diminished political integrity, vastly increased unworkable bi-partisanship, bought into Trickle Down economics with all it inherent hypocrisies like "Free Enterprise and its mandatory oversight and regulation, which Republicans won't accept rhetorically, diminished education quality through wholesale confusion and secular/religious dichotomies as well as dampening tendencies to question authority. The list of course goes on, but, the point being, those moderates support that Party's leadership and its agenda, whether knowingly or ignorantly, they foster the increasingly minority views of the GOP leadership, like ending entitlements, privatizing mail, and selling American public assets to the private corporate sector.
Whether moderates wish to, or not, they own the agenda of the GOP by supporting that Party by my view, just as an accessory to murder is as guilty as the party that wields the lethal blow.
Alex said: "However, I don't know that I will subscribe to the idea that this House of Representatives will be the last power of a dying Republican Party, as there is no limit to how far stupidity and fear will go."
Time will tell. There is a limit to how far stupidity and fear will go, and that limit is when they become self-defeating. An experience the GOP is suffering now, as we type, with the public backlash over Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare and Social Security. Eventually, this trend of the GOP losing public support will either result in the electoral demise of the Party, or, a restructuring of the Party around a very different agenda and ideology. Either constitutes the end of the Party as we know it today. Structurally, there will always be a GOP, because corporate and wealthy special interests will pay to keep its structural integrity intact. But, where public support is concerned, the Party can experience a demise, and we are witnessing it in contemporary times.
Alex, I very much enjoy your commentaries. I will initiate your writer's account this evening. Thank you, so very much for contributing to the dialogue at Discuss America.
Thank you David, I also enjoy our conversations.
On the GOP issue, I'll say that not only do I feel that the leaders (elected officials) and the followers (electors) are in separate categories, but so too are the smarter (Gingrich) and stupider (Bachmann) officials of the leadership. The difference between the latter two is one of ignorance. Gingrich isn't ignorant (arguably), he doesn't believe any of the nonsense he says, perhaps he's trying to rewrite fact, but Bachmann very truly believes that what she says is right (no pun intended). It's the very significant difference between malevolence and ignorance; I feel that the two belong in separate categories. However, I do agree that these various people, regardless of category, bear a great deal of responsibility for their actions, whether motivated by stupidity or conspiracy. Ignorance is always inexcusable.
On the second point (American stupidity and fear), we may just have to agree to disagree. While I do have faith in the political process (Obama will almost surely be reelected), I see a country that is kicking and screaming in the face of progress. I'm sure that many in our position in the 1930s felt that no party could emerge in the wake of the Great Depression and continue advocating the same policies (unregulated speculation of the stock market, etc). But here we are, 80 years later and that very same party promotes those very same ideals ("deregulation is the key to jobs"). I hope that the moderate conservatives of the Republican Party regain their voice in the near future, but I see no particular reason to bet on it now.
Couldn't agree with you more, Alex, on Bachmann. The most ignorant people I have ever met are those who are unaware of what they don't know. Such folks are usually also extremely susceptible to unquestioning belief in authority figures of their own choosing, as if reiterating the errors of their authority figures adds something to their own credibility. Bachmann is on record for having congratulated the Obama administration in a letter for their Federal Government direct intervention into the free market for pork prices by buying Pork to shore up pork producer prices - (pork producers are a mainstay of Bachmann's constituents in her district.) Bachmann lobbied the Agriculture Dep't. for this direct market intervention using tax dollars to buy pork to shore up the price. In other words, as an MSNBC host put it, Bachmann is a socialist of the worst order, and is completely ignorant of her actions falling deeply into that category.