There is a truly
disturbing column in today's HuffPost from a guy I normally think makes a lot
of sense, Cenk Uyger. The article is HERE, and this is how he
starts it off:
Who is more conservative - Ronald Reagan or
Barack Obama?
If you think that's an absurd question, you're
not alone. We had this discussion on The Dylan Ratigan Show when I was filling
in for him on MSNBC and both of my guests thought it was absurd. A conservative
website led with the headline that it was absurd (though they did
not present one single fact to back up their claim). Except as it turns out,
based on the facts, it is a really hard question to answer. And it would be
absurd to claim otherwise.
Please,
Cenk, add me to the chorus of those who think the very question is absurd.
First
of all, we are talking about two completely different times. When Reagan took
office, the country was coming out of one of the most progressive periods in
our history. In 1981, we were still manufacturing things, and our economy was
mostly based on making products or performing services and selling them. We
weren't at war, and the Soviet Union was already beginning to collapse.
Compare that to the world in 2009. After nearly 30 years of neocon (NOT “conservative”)
political domination, the world is a completely different place.
In
order to compare Reagan's politics with Obama's, you have to define
"conservative" using a static definition of the term, which is
impossible to do with any credibility. FDR was a liberal, for example, but if
time travel enabled him to come see us in 2010, and he was still against giving
equal rights to blacks, would he be allowed to join our little liberal
fraternity? LBJ ushered in the era of equal civil rights, as well as the first
socialized medical insurance program and the first comprehensive welfare
programs in the history of the country. What a liberal, right? But then, he
also got us deeply into the Vietnam War, so maybe he wasn't.
My
point is, the first level of absurdity in his argument is that you can define
"conservative" the same in 2010 as it was defined in 1981.
But
Uyger's argument gets even more absurd, and wallows into Fox News
"revisionist history" territory to make his point. I actually found
it ironic that he complained about a conservative web site not presenting
"one single fact" to back up their claim that the question was
absurd, because Uyger himself doesn't present one actual “fact” to back up his
own argument. Most of his “facts” are mere suppositions and twisted logic. Here
is the extremely cherry-picked and revisionist examples (or "facts"
as he apparently thinks of them) he uses to support his faulty premise:
Ronald Reagan:
- Gave Amnesty to Illegal
Immigrants
- Negotiated with Terrorists
(Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
- Raised Taxes on a Large
Scale Four Times (After Initially Lowering Them)
- Negotiated with the
"Evil Empire" without Pre-conditions
- Made a Decision to
"Cut and Run" From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked
In fact, as you look at the Reagan list, it
seems he is the exact opposite of what conservatives now claim they want. It
looks like the caricature of what they think liberals do. There is no way that
even Dennis Kucinich would be able to do all of those things; he certainly
wouldn't negotiate with terrorists the way Reagan did.
Take special note of that, folks. He’s already redefined the term “conservative”
to mean the teabaggers, and suggested that, because Reagan didn’t toe the contemporary
teabaggers view of things, well, Reagan wasn’t a real conservative. (Hint to
Cenk; neither did Bush. In fact, the teabaggers didn’t even form until Obama
was president. Take that as a hint.
Barack Obama:
- Escalated the Afghanistan
War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
- Has Ordered Drone Strikes (Assassinations) on US Citizens Outside the Country
- Gave Drug Companies Near
Monopoly Power by Barring Imports, Extending
- Patents and Not Allowing
the Government to Negotiate Better Prices
- Funneled Billions into the
Biggest Banks in the Country After They Crashed the Economy
- Stacked
Deficit Commission with Fiscal Conservatives
- Lowered Taxes
Significantly (Stimulus Bill)
- Ordered Increased Offshore
Drilling Before BP Spill
This almost reads as if a
right winger wrote it. In order to make his absurd premise look valid, he takes
the most extreme examples from both presidencies and twists them to make it
look as if Reagan and Obama are somehow similar. But the examples are
ridiculous.
Yes, Reagan will give
amnesty to illegal immigrants. But have you taken a look at that I-9 we all
have to fill out whenever we take a job? Holy Arizona, Batman! We all have to
PROVE our citizenship in order to take a job in this country. In other words,
while gave the undocumented workers amnesty, he began to shred the Constitution
for the rest of us. In other words (and keep this concept in mind, because it’s
repeated), Reagan had to give up something to get something else. By the way, can anyone who was alive and
paying attention when Reagan was president imagine his Justice Department suing
a right wing governor over a Republican-passed law requiring everyone to prove
their not illegal in order to walk the streets? And don’t look now, but Obama
will also be granting amnesty during his presidency; I guarantee it. But
something tells me he won’t be pushing a “prove your citizenship” law when he
does so.
So, when you have the
whole story, is Obama more or less “conservative” than Reagan?
As for Reagan negotiating
with terrorists, I’m not sure why that’s relevant to proving someone’s a “conservative”
or “liberal.” It also requires one to define “terrorist” in static terms. Using
that logic, then Nixon was a liberal for engaging Mao. Reagan never admitted to negotiating with
terrorists. If you’ll remember, he was apparently aloof, unaware of all the “negotiating
with terrorists” that was going on around him. On the other hand, Obama sent
former President Clinton to North Korea to secure the release of two US
journalists, and did so in the open. Now, do we consider Kim Jong Il a
terrorist? If not, what makes him different than those in charge of Iran?
Now, when it comes to
negotiating with “evil empires” without preconditions, the entire concept is
absurd, because it depends on your definition of terrorists. Most of the
hijackers on 9/11 had Saudi passports. Do I have to be clearer on that?
Bottom line Reagan denied
ever negotiating with terrorists and Obama openly sent an envoy to North Korea.
Who’s more “conservative”?
Now, let’s talk about the
tax thing.
What does raising and
lowering taxes on anyone have to do with defining “conservative” or “liberal”?
If you’re going to use this absurd argument to “prove” that Obama is as “conservative”
as Reagan was, then tell the whole story. The Reagan Administration left the
rich and large businesses with a significantly lower tax bill and left the
working classes and small businesses with higher taxes. Obama, in his short
time in office, has reduced taxes on the working classes and small businesses
and raised them twice on the rich and large corporations. Now, to his credit, Reagan
also increased the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poor, but so did Obama.
Therefore, call me crazy, but based on even a static interpretation of the terms
“conservative” and “liberal,” they are pretty much polar opposites, as the
record shows.
Therefore, to use that as
ammunition to claim Obama as “conservative” as Reagan requires some serious
redefinition and omission. Unless you believe a “conservative” raises taxes for
the rich and lowers them for the poor.
Now, let’s talk about the
Obama list.
The Afghanistan “escalation”
is a bad example to prove Uyger’s contention. First of all, Bush put us in
Afghanistan, not Obama. Bush should have had us out of there by 2002, even if
you thought we should have been there in the first place. We had been mired
there, unmoving, for more than seven years by the time Obama took office. And
like it or not, the surge in Iraq worked, in that the extra troops allowed us
to stabilize the country and train Iraqis to take over their own security, and
we’re all but out of there as a result. Obama is doing much the same in
Afghanistan.
But what Obama did does
not constitute an “escalation” of the war at all. Look at the entire strategy. If
you’d been paying attention, you’d know that the strategy is three-fold. Stabilize
the populated areas; train Afghan security forces; and prevent the Afghan
Taliban from massing and joining forces with the Pakisani Taliban and causing
major instability in a nuclear power. He has also set the withdrawal date of
July 2011 in stone; Obama has made it clear that HE will make the decision as
to whether conditions on the ground warrant withdrawal, not the Pentagon. And the
number of Afghan security forces has more than tripled since he took over, in
part because he decided they had to pay soldiers more than the Taliban was
paying them; something the Bushies never quite figured out in eight years.
Also, troops over there (my son is on his way back from there as we speak, so I
know what I’m talking about) have been order to not begin firefights, and not
to engage in them unless there is no other choice. That hardly constitutes an
escalation of a war.
As for the drone attack on
one American citizen, I will agree that such a thing is extremely troubling and
gives me pause. But I don’t have the intelligence he has. But that’s neither
here nor there, if we’re going to compare. Reagan’s people used the money they made
selling arms to Iran to arm Nicaraguan thugs who were known to have raped nuns
and killed innocent women and children, just because they were anti-Marxist. And
didn’t we effectively arm BOTH sides in the Iran-Iraq war while Reagan was in
charge? Do you really think one or two missteps by the Obama Administration
puts him in the same category, let alone makes him “more Conservative” than
Reagan?
Now, let’s talk about this
falsehood about the drug companies, because this type of thing really sounds
like Fox News. Essentially, Obama made a deal with the drug companies to keep
them from pouring billions of dollars into killing health insurance reform. And
it would have worked. One thing that has always puzzled me about people like
Cenk and a lot of liberals; why can’t they see anything in a positive light? We
got a foundation for universal health care; we got 30 million people access to
insurance who had no access before; and we forced private insurers to adhere to
rules that in the long run will make it necessary to create a public system. We
set the standard for universal health care for the first time in this country,
after a century of trying. So the drug companies make a few extra bucks for a
while; the positives outweigh the negatives.
But in terms of this
absurd argument, WHY Obama made a deal with the drug companies is quite
relevant here. He gave up a little to get a lot. It’s called politics, and the
reason why progressives always seem to be shut out of the political arena is
just this sort of tunnel vision. We expect the mere rightness of our cause to
be enough to force others to bend to our will, but that’s not how real life
works.
Next is the absurd concept
that Obama “funneled money” into banks.
I don’t want to get into
this in detail right now, but for a guy with Cenk Uyger’s education and
background, that has to be the stupidest statement he could make. And I’m not
even talking about the fact that the “funneling” started before he even took
office.
Look, folks, like it or
not, for 25 years, banks have been allowed to swallow each other and become bigger
and bigger. And as long as people made money, no one gave a shit. Look at the
delight people took when the stock market went from 3000 to 14,000 over the
course of 25 years and how happy everyone was as a clue. Stock markets aren’t
supposed to increase that much that fast; it’s called a “bubble,” and a
bubble led to the Great Depression.
And we LOVED that banks
were getting bigger as a result. “Oh, look, Honey; if we put money into this
nationwide bank, we can withdraw money from an ATM anywhere we travel without having
to pay a fee of a dollar or two; isn’t that wonderful?” Then, the Republicans
in Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and banks were allowed to do whatever they
wanted with YOUR money. Don’t ever forget, that is YOUR money in those banks. And
they invested YOUR money in financial instruments the government sanctioned as
safe, but which were not, because the return was just wonderful. Never mind
that no one understood them; they made money, so who really cared, right?
Well, when the house of
cards came crashing down, the government was forced to make a choice. If they
let the banks fail, all of YOUR money would be lost. And yes, I know your money
is insured, but the FDIC and FSLIC aren’t solvent enough to take on the entire
banking system. So, they HAD to bail them out. There was no choice. Trust me;
if Reagan was in charge, HE would have bailed out the banks, too. Again, nice
to remember; it is YOUR money in those banks. If they had allowed the banks to
crash, YOUR money would have been lost and most of your favorite merchants
would have been forced to close. Think gas prices are high now? Imagine if half
the gas stations in your area would have been forced to close? Like high food
prices? Imagine your favorite supermarkets closed and the ones left just
increased prices, or ran out of stock a lot of the time, or most of the brands
your store carried just disappeared because they had no more money to operate?
This is what too many left
and right wingers don’t seem to get; we are all dependent on these banks,
whether we want to be or not. If they collapsed, it’s not just a few snotty
rich folks who would suffer; we all would.
As I said, most of the
bailouts were passed and occurred before Obama took office, and the money
handed out before he was sworn in was just handed out without condition.
Immediately after taking office, Obama started putting conditions on the
bailout money, and as a result almost all of the money we gave the banks has been
paid back. Therefore, Cenk’s basic presumption is faulty; Obama didn’t just
give them money; he made them pay it back.
In fact, compare what
Obama did with regard bank bailouts and compare that to what Reagan did with
the Resolution Trust Corporation before you decide Reagan and he are from the
same “conservative” mold. Strange that Cenk didn’t mention that one in the Reagan
list, but only as a half-truth on the Obama list. Funny thing about
pre-conceived notions; you can always find something to back it up.
As for ordering off-shore
drilling before the BP oil spill, it’s just not that simple. Once more, his
motivation for doing this is quite relevant to this argument, because he okayed
the off-shore exploration so that he could hike CAFÉ standards significantly
and get more money for alternative energy development. A key part of that
agreement was that, while new drilling might happen, it could only happen after
the drilling could be proven safe. It was going to take years to do the
exploration and the environmental study, and in return, we would take strong
measures to lessen the need for the oil in the first place. Once again, Uyger
looks at the negatives and yell and scream at them, while we refuse to look at
the positives the negatives brought.
I would also remind Cenk
Uyger that when Reagan took office, the United States had a strong alternative
energy program in place designed to reduce energy consumption 5% per year and
invested in development of alternative sources of energy Reagan scrapped all of
it, except for the ethanol program, which he expanded at the behest of his
buddy Dwayne Andreas at ADM. He also scrapped as much environmental regulation
as he could.
So, what has Obama done
about this in his scant 18 months in office? In addition to the first significant
increase in fuel mileage standards in nearly 30 years and the first attempt to
seriously reduce oil consumption in the United States in 30 years, the stimulus
bill contained the single largest investment EVER in clean energy technology in
the history of the country.
Ever compare an apple to
an orange, Cenk?
Now, I really have to ask
about this one, because it stumps me.
Why is putting “fiscal
conservatives on the deficit commission” even on the Obama list? First of all, the inclusion seems to presume
that being something of a “fiscal conservative” is a bad thing on a commission
designed to find ways to reduce the budget deficit. One of the problems we have
had for the past 30 years is the bastardization of the concept of “fiscal
conservative” to mean someone who is in favor of lower taxes no matter what,
while they looked the other way at spending increases that went to people they
favor. But having actual fiscal conservatives, using the accurate and
traditional definition of the term, is actually a good thing.
I could never understand
the hatred liberals have with Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers, either. Obama
is still making the ultimate decisions on policy; what’s wrong with having
people under him who understand this system better than he does? When the FBI
caught Frank Abignale after years of forging checks, they hired him to catch
other check forgers. When law enforcement wants to know how bad guys use computers,
they hire hackers as consultants. And if you want to get control of deficits,
you hire “fiscal conservatives.”
Which brings me to the
biggest problem I have with this whole argument; the definition of a “conservative.”
Ronald Reagan was not a
conservative. He was a right winger.
Now, compared to the right
wingers who have taken over the GOP recently, he may seem a bit more
reasonable, but that was because he knew he had to be pragmatic on some level
in order to keep the movement afloat. He didn’t save Social Security because he
wanted to; if he’d had the power, he would have demolished Social Security in one
move. But the elderly vote, so he had to save it. Of course, notice HOW he
saved it. He could have left the percentage be, and just raised the cap. That
would have fixed the system. But instead he left the cap where it was and
raised the tax rate for everyone under the cap. So, in true neocon fashion, he
left the rich alone and raised taxes on the working classes. But he fixed it, so
he deserves credit. He also deserves credit for beefing up the Earned Income
Tax Credit, which benefits the working poor. Of course, at the same time, he also
completely scrapped every job training program in existence, slashed the hell
out of welfare payments, and refused to increase the minimum wage.
In other words, while he
was a full-fledged right winger, he had a pragmatic side, which made him
moderate on a few high profile issues in order to satisfy moderate voters that
he wasn’t a complete lunatic. The reason he was able to turn our entire system
into a neocon playground was because he had the good sense to play to the other
side occasionally, to make himself look less like an ideologue.
Obama is a progressive.
Make no mistake about this. This guy has done more repair work in less than two
years than Clinton did in eight. And it’s precisely because he[s doing the same
thing Reagan did, but from the OPPOSITE angle. Look at his actual record, and
he’s made greater strides on both foreign and domestic policy than anyone in a
very long time; certainly in my lifetime. But look at what he’s up against;
neocon politics has been a fact of life for almost 30 years. In those 30 years,
the neocons have packed the courts and rigged the regulatory system of this
country in favor of the rich and the large corporations that dominate our
economy. People are used to thinking in neocon
terms these days; some things the neocons pushed have become common “wisdom,”
and it will take time to break old habits. We’re used to an economy wherein you
become rich by putting money into a fund that buys and sells financial
instruments for us. We’re used to an economy that ships manufacturing jobs
overseas because they’re willing to work cheap. We’re used to being in debt up
to our eyeballs and thinking we’re rich because we have a lot of crap that will
probably never be fully paid for.
In other words, Obama is
as progressive as one can be in this climate, and still get shit done. Is he a “conservative”?
Based on the traditional definition of the term, yes, he probably is. But then,
by that definition, most self-described liberals are as well. I think we would all
agree that deficits are bad for everyone; that no one should pay so much in
taxes that he can’t function, but everyone should pay something; that no one
should be allowed to have undue influence in the political system; that
everyone, including Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, should have the right to any
opinion they choose; that a just society punishes all criminals in a fair and
equitable manner and doesn’t punish anyone else; and that we should balance
economic and environmental needs. Those are all actual conservative principles.
The radicals that have
claimed the word “conservative” are not conservative at all. They think deficits
are fine, as long as they get what they need; they think of all taxes as “theft,”
rather than payment for services rendered; they love having absolute power in
the political system, and they are more than willing to sacrifice everyone else
to get what they want; they only care that their opinion is heard, and they are
joyous when they are able to suppress the speech of others; they don’t believe
in justice, only punishment for those who commit crimes they disapprove of, or
for those people of whom they disapprove.
Here’s the difference in a
nutshell:
Ronald Reagan was not a
conservative; he was a right winger, trying to implement his agenda in a
post-liberal world.
Barack Obama is a
progressive, but he’s trying to implement his agenda in a post-neocon world.
The concept that you can
compare a right winger to a progressive based on a few poorly considered,
cherry-picked and twisted examples of actions by two men in two different
political eras is patently absurd.
Yes, Cenk; I said absurd.
Deal with it.
