Republicans Becoming More Conservative

April 14, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Here’s a totally non-surprising finding: Republicans have become more conservative. Keith Poole and Howard Rosentahl have found that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been in a century. While the Democrats have also moved to the left, largely due to the loss of more conservative members from the south, they have moved far less than Republicans:

Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.

This graph shows the ideological movement for both parties in the House. Note the steady shift towards conservatism among Republicans.

This graph shows the ideological movement for both parties in the House. Note the steady shift towards conservatism among Republicans.

In a recent conversation Poole, who’s viewed by other political scientists as the go-to expert on this issue, explained that the data are very clear:

“This is an entirely objective statistical procedure. The graphs just reflect what comes out of the computer. Howard Rosenthal and I, we’ve been working on something called Nominate. This does all the Congresses simultaneously, which allows you to study change over time.

“The short version would be since the late 1970s starting with the 1976 election in the House the Republican caucus has steadily moved to the right ever since. It’s been a little more uneven in the Senate. The Senate caucuses have also moved to the right. Republicans are now furtherest to the right that they’ve been in 100 years.

Of course some, and not just conservative activists, will be quick to point out that Democrats also have their take-no-prisoner liberals who aren’t prone to compromise on their core issues, either…

Poole acknowledges that Democrats have contributed their share to the polarization of the political process, especially, he says, through their use of identity politics, appeals to race, ethnicity and gender.Democrats have also contributed by losing House and Senate seats in the South where moderate Democrats have been replaced by Republicans. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans have continued to depart the scene, with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine being just the latest.

Buttressing a point that Obama has sometimes made, this loss of moderates and further rightward movement by congressional Republicans would have been a challenge to navigate for even the biggest conservative hero of modern times, President Ronald Reagan. Poole said:

“Ronald Reagan was so successful because he made all these deals with these huge blocks of moderate legislators. That’s why he had overwhelming majorities for the 81 tax cut, the 82 tax increase, where they had to go back and adjust the tax bill in 82 and the Social Security fix in 83. Then in 86 you had Simpson Mazzoli, which included amnesty and tax simplification. All that stuff passed with very large majorities. You cannot imagine anything like that happening now. Which is why the country is really in the tank.

“There’s a lot of blame to go around. It doesn’t look like there’s any resolution of this anytime soon.”

That said, Poole says the data are hard to deny; the polarization is largely due to how far and relatively quickly Republicans have shifted to the right end of the ideological spectrum. And he faults leaders of both parties for allowing the nation to get into a fiscal morass in which government spending on health care is unsustainable:

“It is true that the Republicans have moved further to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. That’s absolutely true.

“On the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be much impetus on the part of the leadership of either political party to really do something serious about our budget crisis. I doubt very seriously we’ll see much improvement.

“People forget how utterly irresponsible our political leadership has been for the last 30 years. … The current political class of the U.S. just isn’t in the same league as Truman and Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. You just don’t have that kind of leadership now, just when we need it.

 

Posted in Democrats, Republicans, Ronald Reagan. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Arby’s Has Done The Right Thing

April 7, 2012 — Ron Chusid

One good reason why your next fast-food meal should be at Arby’s: Conservatives are angry that Arby’s joined the boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Curious how conservatives equate a decision not to advertise on Limbaugh’s show with suppression of freedom of speech. Do they really think that free speech means that people are obligated to pay money to support Limbaugh’s broadcast of bigotry?  Of course it has long been clear that the current conservative movement (which is actually an extremist authoritarian cult which has little to do with actual conservatism) has no understanding of either rights or of the free market in the real world. Conservatives strongly support the rights of business owners to do whatever they want–unless they disagree with their decisions.

Posted in News Media. Tags: , . 2 Comments »

The Conservative Mind

March 31, 2012 — Ron Chusid

The differences between left and right have increasingly become a matter not of differences in opinion but in differences in facts which are accepted. This has been studied the most with regards to science, with conservative belief in science now hitting new lows. This has also been commonly seen with high profile issues ranging from false conservative beliefs that Saddam threatened the United States with WMD or was involved in the 9/11 attacks  to their false beliefs that Barack Obama is a Muslim, a Socialist, and someone born outside of the United States.

Conservative rejection of science is most striking to those who understand that science is the best way to study the world around us based upon verifiable facts, but Republican anti-intellectualism is not limited to science. They promote a revisionist history to justify their policies, and promote economic views which have no basis in any sensible economic theory, even ignoring the actual economic views of capitalist economists they claim to follow. If Adam Smith were to come back to life, he would die laughing over the economic views which today’s conservatives promote, often claiming they are based upon his views.

Chris Mooney, who has written a lot on this topic, has an article in Mother Jones coinciding with the publication of his new book on The Republican Brain. Studies have shown biological differences between conservatives and liberals. These differences certainly might have some influence as to the ideology someone holds, but I suspect that this is something influenced by both nature and the influences on an individual. Therefore we see far more liberals on the coasts then in the deep south.

Kevin Drum raises the question of why American conservatives are more anti-science than those in Europe. Similar questions could be raised based upon time. At some times, such as during the McCarthy era, conservatives were as fanatic as those today, while at other times the bulk of the conservative movement tended to be less extreme. William F. Buckley, with all his faults, would probably have tried to keep the Tea Party followers out of the conservative movement as he did with the Birchers.  Barry Goldwater was so repulsed by the direction that he saw the conservative movement moving that he considered himself a liberal in his later years. If Ronald Reagan were still alive and alert I suspect he would do the same.

I think this also comes down to the importance of environment impacting on possible biological factors. While other factors are at play, there are two main characteristics of today’s conservative movement which makes them more likely to reject facts. First, the conservative movement consists of alliances which have a vested interest in ignoring facts. This ranges from the religious right to those being duped into denying science change to support the interests of the petroleum industry.

Secondly, today’s American conservative movement has a propaganda machine which might be powerful than has ever been seen in human history, with the ability to get conservatives to internalize and spread beliefs which are totally irrational. Fox has been far more successful in promoting misinformation than the propaganda machines of Hitler or Stalin.  In many ways the American conservative movement is far closer to the authoritarian movements of the 20th century than to any beliefs held in the past by Americans. Unlike Hitler and Stalin, the conservative movement does not need to eliminate the trappings of democracy when they can fool their followers into thinking that they are promoting freedom and  limited government. Orwell certainly saw this coming.

Posted in Barry Goldwater, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Science. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Advertisers Avoiding Rush Limbaugh And Other Far Right Wing Extremists

March 10, 2012 — Ron Chusid

We already knew that right wingers were out of touch with reality based upon their views, but who knew they were so out of touch with reality that they had no idea that antagonizing a group making up over 50 percent of the population could backfire. From Radio-Info.com via Think Progress:

When it comes to advertisers avoiding controversial shows, it’s not just Rush From today’s TRI Newsletter: Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway). As you’ll see in the note below, those “environments” go beyond the Rush Limbaugh show

“To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory...They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).’

This is an even dumber move than Rick Santorum losing Catholic votes by attacking John Kennedy and the First Amendment.

Think Progress notes the comparison to Glenn Beck:

The advertising flight is reminiscent of Glenn Beck’s Fox News program. After major companies refused to advertise on Beck’s show in light of racially insensitive comments, he was left with just fringe businesses like survival seed banks and gold sellers. Not long thereafter, he left Fox, reportedly under pressure.

John Avlon has more at The Daily Beast:

This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are “carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway).” Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue.

Valerie Geller, an industry insider and author of Beyond Powerful Radio, confirmed the trend. “I have talked with several reps who report that they’re having conversations with their clients, who are asking not to be associated with specifically polarizing controversial hosts, particularly if those hosts are ‘mean-spirited.’ While most products and services offered on these shows have strong competitors, and enjoy purchasing the exposure that many of these shows and hosts can offer, they do not wish to be ‘tarred’ with the brush of anger, or endure customer anger, or, worse, product boycotts.”

There are already tangible signs that the three dozen national and local advertisers that have pulled their ads from The Rush Limbaugh Show are having a financial impact.

While many major businesses want nothing to do with Limbaugh or other right wing extremists, there are still people out there who defend people like Limbaugh. Despite all the awful things Rush Limbaugh has said and done, at least he has done one thing of value. Thanks to Rush it is now possible to determine within seconds whether a person is a scumbag by seeing if they are defending Limbaugh on their Facebook page.

Posted in Blogs & Social Media, News Media, Rick Santorum. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Jeb Bush Accurately Describes Current GOP Field

February 25, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Jeb Bush, generally regarded as George’s younger, smarter brother,  has been receiving a lot of credit this week for saying what any sane conservative should realize:

“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed, but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that’s kind of where we are.”

It is a shame he didn’t speak out when his brother was in the White House. While the Republican Party has moved even further to the right, the fact remains that George Bush was probably the most radical right wing president in our history, and few (if any) other presidents have done as much harm to the country as Bush.

I wonder if Jeb is laying the groundwork for a 2016 campaign, already realizing the importance of distancing himself from what could be a disastrous campaign in 2012. This assumes that the Republican Party will be more sane in 2016 than it is now, which is a very questionable prediction. It is easy for Jeb Bush to sound more sane now when he is not running. If he was a candidate for the 2012 nomination he might be forced to act just as insane as Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney.

There was a time when perhaps Mitt Romney would be the Republican candidate who tried to tone down the extremism and campaign as the sane candidate. Instead Romney has actually tried to campaign with claims of being to the right of Rick Santorum. As Bill Maher has pointed out, that cannot work:  “he can’t be to the right of Rick Santorum because there’s nothing to the right except Kirk Cameron and the Neo-Nazi Party.”

Posted in George Bush, Humor and Satire, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Obama’s Critics

January 16, 2012 — Ron Chusid

The above cover of Newsweek, asking “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” seems unnecessarily provocative. It does not even portray Andrew Sullivan’s article accurately, which is more about how smart he believes Obama to be than directly insulting his critics. Still, we could see where conservatives would object, but one would think they might want to use a little intelligence in their response.

The most amusing thing about this cover is how John Hinderacker unintentionally showed that this cover might be right, repeating all the false claims which are common in the right wing echo chamber but totally false:

Well, sure. We who are unhappy that unemployment has increased on Obama’s watch, that over-regulation has stymied economic growth, that our children now owe a $15 trillion debt that we can’t pay–hey, we’re just dumb! We obviously aren’t smart enough to understand how devastating our economy, unemploying millions of Americans and burdening our children with trillions of dollars in debt is really a great idea.

I had several previous posts debunking such conservative claims, but Sullivan also did so in his article. He pointed this out in a blog post:

As I note in the piece, the worst month for job losses in this recession happened to be Bush’s last month. At that point, we were losing something like 750,000 jobs a month, with an annualized drop in GDP approaching 9 percent! Within a year of that, the US had gone back into job creation. Since then, we’ve added 2.4 million jobs or so – almost all in the private sector. As for debt, the notion that Obama gave us $15 trillion of it is something most Republicans seem now to believe. This is the truth:

Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

The conservative movement is based upon visceral opposition to Obama but no longer really stands for anything meaningful. If you support a market system, lower taxes for most Americans, fiscal responsibility, and economic recovery, the facts overwhelmingly support Obama over his conservative opponents.  If you believe the right wing rhetoric blaming Obama for the deficit or the state of the economy, at the very least you are misinformed. I’ll leave it to Newsweek to be more explicit regarding such people.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Economy. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

To Hell With Facts–Rick Santorum Wants To Keep Science Out Of Politics

December 10, 2011 — Ron Chusid

The most remarkable thing about the conservative movement is not their opinions, which most ethical individuals find repulsive, but that they have their own facts, which make most intelligent individuals cringe.

Conservatives have developed their own “news” sources such as Fox and right wing talk radio to protect them from hearing actual facts about the outside world. When the wish to hide the fact that they are promoting views which directly contradict the views of the Founding Fathers on subjects such as separation of church and state, they promote their own revisionist history. They ignore sound economic principles to promote their brand of Voodoo Economics, regardless of how often their economic view fail in the real world. Conservatives especially concentrate on rejecting science when the facts contradict their views, including on creationism, denying geology and cosmology when it contradicts their views on the creation of the earth and the universe, and denying climate change.

I’ve had numerous discussions with conservatives who have openly rejected science, believing scientific evidence can be ignored when it contradicts their religious beliefs, but political leaders are rarely as open in their contempt for science. Rick Santorum is an exception in his open hostility towards science. He opposes keeping religion out of government, but does want to keep science out. According to the Des Moines Register, while discussing controversial subjects such as evolution and global warming, Santorum suggested that “science should get out of politics.”

Yes, it would not serve conservative goals to base public policy upon facts, including facts established by the scientific method. As Steven Colbert  has said, ” reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Posted in Environment, Evolution, Republicans, Science, Separation of Church and State. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Ross Douthout Shows Rejection of Science Is Necessary To Succeed In GOP

December 1, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Ross Douthat has unintentionally demonstrated that one cannot be a successful Republican candidate without rejecting science (or at least hiding their beliefs)  in a post on why Jon Huntsman’s campaign for the Republican nomination has been unsuccessful. Douthat says that Huntsman has failed because, “He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming…” He considers this to be “political malpractice at its worst.”

In other words, it is now political suicide in the Republican Party to openly acknowledge acceptance of science. Evolution is firmly established as a factual explanation for the development of complex organisms from simple organisms and is the foundation of modern biology. The science behind global warming is accepted by well over ninety percent of scientists in the field. Despite this, conservatives reject both fields of science. The typical conservative not only rejects,  but is totally ignorant of the evidence for evolution, and considers creationism to be a valid alternative. Conservatives see climate change as a conspiracy and a hoax while creating their own hoax with the bogus claims surrounding “Climategate”  which have been debunked by five separate investigations.

Posted in Environment, Evolution, Republicans, Science. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

The Possibility Of The Republican Race Going To The Convention

November 23, 2011 — Ron Chusid

With conservatives hating Mitt Romney, but each of the conservative candidates currently in the race having major flaws, I have speculated several times in the past about the possibility of the nomination being decided by the convention. I have wondered if it is possible that, as during the past year, each conservative candidate might have periods of time and places where they could do well against Romney. Each conservative candidate might have a significant block of candidates which, while less than Romney’s might total over half the delegates. This might lead to a situation where Romney has the largest block of delegates, but not enough to clinch the nomination.

The possibility of this would partially depend upon the rules for each primary. If the primaries were winner-take-all, then Romney would have an easier job of coming in first in enough states to accumulate enough delegates to clinch the nomination. However, proportional division might result in Romney’s delegates being outnumbered by anti-Romney delegates, even if none of the conservative candidates comes close to Romney’s total. Salon has analyzed the primary rules and found that this scenario is possible.

The key rule is that states holding primaries and caucuses prior to April 1 will all have proportional division of delegates, making it much harder for one candidate to accumulate enough delegates in the early states to have enough to a lead to make their nomination inevitable.  This rule means that 1,163 of 2,380 total delegates will be chosen before the first winner-take-all states. A substantial number, perhaps a majority, will be delegates for more conservative candidates. It is possible that by April only around 350 anti-Romney delegates divided among more conservative candidates would be needed to deny Romney the nomination.

If this scenario does play out it is possible that nobody will be able to win the nomination on early ballots and another candidate could ultimately be chosen. This would save the Republicans from having to chose from a particularly poor field. The question still remains whether any candidate who is acceptable to the far right of the Republican Party could be found who isn’t too extreme to win in a general election. Such a candidate might receive some benefit from a probable post-convention bounce and lack of public knowledge of their negatives. There will still be time for the candidate’s faults to come out, as occurred with Sarah Palin in 2008.  Perhaps a right-wing dominated convention might even be foolish enough to nominate Palin, although polls of Republicans suggest that is unlikely. There is also the question as to how much of an advantage it would be for Obama to be able to campaign against Republican policies in general through the spring and summer, even if he didn’t have a specific opponent, while the Republicans would have no candidate going into the convention. Regardless of how it plays out, it does raise the possibility of interesting developments in the horse race after going for decades where the conventions ceased to have much meaning.

Posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Is Barack Obama A Centrist?

November 10, 2011 — Ron Chusid

On line polls have minimal meaning but I found this one at The Economist interesting. If an American conservative magazine were to have a poll as to Barack  Obama’s ideology, a majority of their readership would be deluded enough to claim he is a socialist. Of course to uninformed conservatives, socialism means a slight increase in the marginal tax rate on millionaires as opposed to its actual meaning of public ownership of the means of production.

Readers of The Economist are more in touch with reality than readers of American conservative publications. The Economist  asked if Barack Obama is a centrist. At present most of their readers believe he is a centrist by an  almost two to one margin:

Of course a centrist remains far more liberal than today’s ultra-right wing Republican Party so I don’t want to hear any of the Bush2 nonsense which comes from some on the far left.

Posted in Barack Obama, Economy. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts «
Newer posts » »