"Progressive" is not synonymous with "Liberal"

Visitors to The Zone often think I'm a Liberal but I have to correct them. A Progressive does not lean to the Left. But he doesn't lean to the Right either. A Progressive leans forward.

Noise stage right

I've been hearing a lot of rhetoric that is incendiary and over-the-top in this election season, especially from political figures -- people who make a case for why we should elect them to represent us and run our governments. The more I hear, the louder it seems to be from the GOP. I'm not saying that Democrats never use incendiary rhetoric that's over-the-top. I'm just saying that it seems to be much more ubiquitous coming from The Right.

I heard Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, say "I'm worried about the war of this administration on the American tax payer" today. And it just sounded so absurd to me. I had this picture of President Obama ordering his generals to roll tanks down the streets, firing shells at tax payers as they go. It was just so incendiary and over-the-top. I don't even know what he meant by "war on the tax payer." Why couldn't the governor have just clearly stated what part of Obama's tax policy he disagrees with instead of equating it to a "war"?

Then when Democrat governor Martin O'Malley from Maryland responded, he said "I think these cultural -- don't like to use the term 'wars' -- these cultural, divisive, wedge issues; the roll back of women's rights; the rollback of women's access to contraception and health care; roll-back of voting rights; roll-back of workers' rights; all these things that take us back, are not strengthening the economy and creating jobs." He was just all-around more conciliatory and rational in his argument. And it struck me as to how representative this discussion was of the discussion I hear in the body politic at large.

Probably the most incendiary name-calling I hear is Republican politicians calling President Obama a socialist. The term is deliberately chosen to be derisive, yet I hear it all the time from The Right, in spite of the fact that it simply is not the truth. The money the government loaned to auto makers has been repaid and the companies are being run by the corporations, not by Obama. And the government didn't take over health care with the "reform" law, it turned health care over to private insurance companies by mandating that every American buy health insurance from them. Even Socialists themselves say that Obama is not socialistic.

I don't have any hard statistics or other empirical evidence about what direction the noise is coming from. All I have is what I read, see, and hear, which is clearly more incendiary rhetoric from The Right than from progressives. When a Democrat responds, the naturally tendency is to make a reasoned argument in support of a progressive position (Nancy Pelosi excepted). Perhaps it's because, all other things equal, there is a presumption to maintain the status quo. The burden rests on the proponent of change to demonstrate why a progressive position should be supported, and hyperbole does not make a convincing argument.

Am I the only one who sees the preponderance of over-the-top rhetoric coming from Republican politicians? If so, where would I find all these cases of Democrats using incendiary rhetoric?

Santorum's church

On This Week yesterday, Rick Santorum said "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." With complete conviction, he went on to say "the idea that the church can have no influence, no involvement, in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our" nation. I challenge Santorum to show America where these objectives and vision are documented -- he, of course, could not.

But even were I to concede that the vision of our nation is that the church have influence and involvement in the operation of the state, I'm sure it would be easy to convince him to oppose that vision. All that would have to happen is to make the church with the influence and involvement the Church of Latter-day Saints. Suddenly Santorum would believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. And I'm not saying that Santorum opposes Mormons in particular -- he would oppose the influence and involvement of Islam or Judaism in the operation of the state just as much.

Santorum's position that church and state should not be separate is based on the presumption that the church with the influence and involvement is Christianity. If he were to win the GOP nomination, Santorum would have a hard time getting the vote of Americans of other faiths -- or of no faith at all.

Endangered species

Normally I'm a proponent of scientific advancement but, when I read about a new breeding program aimed at keeping moderate Republicans from going extinct, I was skeptical. It'll probably work out okay in captivity but they'll never be widespread in the wild. The far-right subgenus will eat the moderates alive. And with their aversion to contraception, they'll crowd the moderates out of the population by their advanced reproductive rate. Even if they didn't crowd them out, the far-right could easily drown out the moderate voice with their constant howling over non-existent threats. I'm afraid the moderate conservatives will only thrive in the confines of a column in the Gray Lady (e.g. David Brooks) or the far northeast territory (e.g. Susan Collins).

Not how to create jobs

I was watching a guest on the Nightly Business Report tonight speak about employment not increasing in America the last couple years. He went on to say that the way to increase employment is to make it easy for job creators to get credit and to reduce regulation. You would think that being a business show, the guest would not be so wrong.

Let's break this claim down to see how wrong it is, starting with the idea that extending credit to employers would make them hire more employees. It's possible that it would in some economic environments but not in this one. Right now, businesses are flush with cash, so credit is not what they need. If they really wanted to hire employees, they would just dip into their retained earnings. But they're not because there's not enough demand to make businesses confident about hiring. And the businesses that do need credit don't have retained earnings for the same reason -- there's insufficient demand for their products. So extending credit to them would not make them hire more employees either.

Reducing regulation isn't going to create jobs either, and for pretty much the same reason -- reducing regulation doesn't have any impact on demand. It might make it easier for a company to operate or make more profit but that's not why businesses hire more employees. They hire more employees because sales are going up and they need more staff to make more widgets or provide more service. Again, regulation does not fit into that equation but, again, demand does.

So, even though the guest was on a business show, he was wrong -- making it easy for job creators to get credit and reducing regulation is not how to create jobs. To increase employment, there needs to be an increase in demand, which is accomplished by stimulus in this economic environment.

The Conservative moniker

I've been watching the GOP presidential hopefuls falling all over themselves to be more "conservative" than the next, as if being "the" Conservative is a badge of honor. The irony is that, much as those GOP hopefuls use the term "liberal" derisively, the term "conservative" has a negative connotation to me. It has nothing to do with conservative values -- I share conservative values on a number of issues myself. The reason I cringe when someone claims to be a Conservative is because hypocrisy, fallacy, and hyperbole seem to run rampant in that crowd. I recognize that the same traits can be found among liberals but it's the exception more than the rule, whereas they seem to be ubiquitous on The Right. Sadly, it appears that hypocrisy, fallacy, and hyperbole are very effective at swaying public opinion.

Newt-land: the mirror image of reality

Newt Gingrich was on the stump today and I saw an excerpt of his speech. He was echoing the same claims he has been making for months now. He was essentially telling the crowd that President Barack Obama has:

• raised taxes
• increased regulation
• is anti-American energy
• wages class warfare

Of course, the crowd probably believed every one of these claims, even though they are all blatant lies.

In fact, Obama has ratified every extension of tax rates brought to his desk on taxes that would have otherwise increased according to law from before he was in office. He requested authority to consolidate federal agencies, which reduces regulation, and has consistently stated support for eliminating obsolete regulations that unnecessarily stifle business. His official energy policy is to develop more energy here at home and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. And he's bailed out bankers and forced millions of Americans to buy health insurance from private corporations, which heavily favors the wealthy.

Basically, Newt is 180-degrees wrong on every count.