History is Happening Now

The AP reports that U.S. special forces have killed eight people inside the border of Syria.  The lede of this article reads:

U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as “serious aggression.”

I find this lede sort of sad and hilarious.  Sure, I guess you can say that U.S. attacks on Syria are “extremely rare”–why not.  In fact, U.S. attacks on most of the world are extremely rare, primarily because the U.S. is not at war with most of the world, at least not officially.  Is the extreme rarity of U.S. attacks on Syria implicitly being presented here as a justification for or diminution of the seriousness of the attack?

As this election season wraps up, I have found it fascinating to read commentators on the right respond to the apparent pending loss of their candidate–and the (well-deserved) total destruction of their hold on the government.  I say “apparent,” of course, because we still don’t know how things will turn out, but the actual result of this election matters less for the purposes of this post than how the response of the right sheds light on the character and thought-process of the luminaries of conservative thought in America.  I’m not talking about rank-and-file conservatives, of course, but elite conservatives, those who are considered thought-leaders of the Movement.

Mark R. Levin, writing about what he calls “The Obama Temptation,” presents one fascinatingly characteristic response to the pending massive defeat of the Republican party.

I honestly never thought we’d see such a thing in our country – not yet anyway – but I sense what’s occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places… There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex… Obama’s entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The “change” he peddles is not new. We’ve seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama’s appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the “the proletariat,” as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it’s $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he’s now officially “rich.” The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class)… The question is whether enough Americans understand what’s at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

What is most fascinating about this response is that Levin doesn’t consider for a moment the possibility that he may be missing something, that he may have been mistaken about Obama–he doesn’t even hint at the possibility of being incorrect.  To his mind, anyone who supports Obama must be by definition irrational, either deluded–like Obama’s conservative supporters–or an anti-American lover of soft authoritarianism hoping to lead a proletariat (middle class!) revolution against the overly successful of the world (death to capitalism!  Nationalize Denny’s!).

This response would almost be funny if it weren’t so sad.  One wonders if Levin means what he says or is being completely cynical.  I hope, for his sake, the latter.

When the Democrats lost control of the government, America was apparently a perfectly rational place to Levin’s mind; now, that Americans have decided they’re fed up with Republican rule, they’ve gone mad.  If conservatives support Obama, it isn’t even remotely possible that they do so because the boringly centrist mainstream Obama poses absolutely no threat to the future of the U.S., not to even speak of the alleged pending socialist takeover of America; no, they support Obama because they’ve been seduced by his wily charismatic ways.  But maybe it’s not the American people or moderate conservative who’ve abandoned rationality and have embraced recklessness… After the Iraq war, Katrina, the suspension of habeas corpus, the systematic use of torture against completely innocent people, the smearing of liberals as anti-American traitors, maybe the American people have decided to reclaim their country from the extremist lunatics who have been at the wheel for the last eight years ((Though one must say that the Democratic party was guilty of doing not nearly enough to push back against the excesses of the ultra-nationalist right, but that’s a topic for another post…))

Anyone who uses the word “proletariat” interchangeably with “middle class” seems like a much stronger candidate for labels such as “irrational” and “reckless,” but maybe that’s just my Obama-seduced/Communist/terrorist/anti-American ((As Levin would label me (and you, too) merely for preferring Obama to McCain)) opinion.

In an interview on NPR several weeks ago, former Ronald Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan came face to face with what I call The New American Politics. She began the interview with Tom Ashbrook by describing the possibility of a major terrorist attack — one that might do far more damage than the 9/11 attacks — and suggested that Americans should strive to maintain a political culture of unity and seriousness, so that when that horrific day comes, God forbid, we will still have the ability to come together as Americans and respond appropriately.

As I listened to her speak, two thoughts struck me: One was that Peggy Noonan is absolutely right. If the polls are any indication, Americans have little faith in their political leaders, little faith in their government, and little faith in each other. This won’t serve us well if our leaders must ask us to work together and make real sacrifices.

The other thought that struck me was that the New American Politics — a politics in which President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress are opposed at every turn by an almost militant right-wing minority that considers liberals un-American, unpatriotic occupiers with no legitimate claim to govern their country — will leave our country especially vulnerable to chaos if another attack occurs and our political culture is stretched to its breaking point.
Noonan struck me as a voice of reason on the right. Then came this exchange, prompted when Ashbrook took a call:

ASHBROOK: Let’s go to Mark in Hingham, Massachusetts. Mark, you’re on the air.
MARK: Yes, hi. How are you Tom?
ASHBROOK: I’m all right.
MARK: Listen, I, um, I agree with what Peggy Noonan is saying, and I think it’s great, but it’s a little hard to swallow from Peggy Noonan, and I don’t mean this personally
NOONAN: Oh
MARK: I mean, after all these years, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove of being called, as a Democrat, unpatriotic, un-American, um, and suddenly, as the Republicans are basically losing power, it’s almost like finding God on the way out.
NOONAN: Oh my goodness. I think that is unjust. I must say, I’ve got to stop you for a second. You never heard me call you or anybody else unpatriotic or Godless or whatever the phrase you used. That is unjust.
ASHBROOK: Mark didn’t say you did but he was looking at the Lee Atwater era, the Karl Rove era.
NOONAN: Oh, my goodness, I’ve spent the last three years attacking the Karl Rove era.
MARK: As I said, this is not personal. I’ve never heard you say anything like this. You’re a good speechwriter. I’ve heard your speeches to Ronald Reagan but what I’m saying is that I have felt, and so have many, many other people, that I’ve been attacked for being unpatriotic for my views, and for being un-American for my views, for many, many years. I’ve always personally felt that–
NOONAN: Do you mean your anti-war views?
MARK: –that Americans are close. You know, I’ve always said that Democrats have always felt, in general, that people should work for a living, and a Republican walking down the street would feel bad if he saw a child starving to death. I’ve always felt that way, but I’ve also been attacked by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for being un-American and unpatriotic because I disagreed with a lot of views of Republicans.
ASHBROOK: Mark, we’ve got the point. Let us pick it up with Peggy Noonan. Peggy, however you interpret that, you can hear the sting that’s been felt out there from an era of politics. Mark feels it vividly. He’s listening to your message of, kind of, reaching out, because we’ve got deep, serious challenges here. He seems attracted to that. And yet, you hear the wariness in his voice because he kind of feels like he’s been stung before.
NOONAN: I don’t think Republicans in general understand the extent to which, when Republicans talk about — in a way, I don’t know where to start. If I can narrow it down, just to Iraq, I’m not sure all Republicans have understood how Democrats have felt when Republicans have talked in support of the war. I’m not sure Democrats, Republicans understood that Democrats felt manipulated and dissed as less patriotic than the Republicans.
ASHBROOK: Turn the radio on any day! You know, you got about a million talk show hosts out there. Start with Rush Limbaugh. Hear the disdain. It’s not, like, subtle.
NOONAN: Well, you can hear that on the left and right. I was thinking of the political leadership in Washington and those that are operatives within Washington. I mean, you can listen to Air America, too, there’s wildness on both sides.
ASHBROOK: (Chuckling) Not very much.
NOONAN: When it comes, yeah, when it comes — and NPR sometimes — when it comes to Washington, I think Republicans, many Republicans, have not appreciated how dissed Democrats have felt on these issues, and I think some Republicans have been absolutely manipulative and used this patriotic stuff to get support for the war. I think it has been most unfortunate. I don’t think they all have. But are there some cynical, oh, and rather cold-blooded political operatives who have thought that way and operated that way, yes. Again, in fairness, I think it happens on both sides but on different issues and in different ways.
ASHBROOK: It’s hard to call Karl Rove “some,” I mean he was right there in the White House. He was leading the Republican Party with George Bush, practically, for a long time. But, some highly placed, we might say, there? Hm?

Peggy Noonan is either woefully ignorant of American politics or she is lying through her teeth. Republicans have used the un-American, unpatriotic line of attack to oppose Democrats on every issue under the sun — not just the war in Iraq. Furthermore, she seems to think these attacks from the right are comparable to attacks on Air America and even, believe it or not, NPR!

In his recent interivew on Meet the Press endorsing Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell complained that prominent Republicans are promoting the idea that Obama is a Muslin, presumably to suggest that Obama is in league with the enemy. We’ve heard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann call for an investigation into the anti-American views of Congress. We’ve heard vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin say Obama “doesn’t see America” the way her supporters do, accuse Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” and suggest some parts of America are less patriotic than others. We’ve heard the state chairman of the Virginia Republican Party say that both Obama and Osama Bin Laden have friends that bombed the Pentagon. We’ve heard another Congressman — Hayes — say that liberals “hate real Americans.” And I’ve heard a popular, well-known talk show host suggest repeatedly that Obama is a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.

If there is another terrorist attack, I predict widespread endorsement of conspiracy theories that Obama was responsible for it. Am I wrong to make this prediction?

If Peggy Noonan had the courage of her convictions, she would stop drawing these ridiculous moral equivalencies between the right-wing’s despicable behavior and the left-wing’s relatively mild pushback, and simply denounce these disgusting attacks for what they are: a threat to our national security.

Years ago, a college professor said something I’ll never forget about writing. He said (and I may be paraphrasing) “Writing is convincing somebody who doesn’t love his mother that you love yours.”

I understood what he meant, not because I don’t love my mother (in fact, I do) but because I know what it’s like to feel pressured to say something that’s not really true — and then to feel suspicious that everyone else who says that very thing is only saying it because they feel pressured to say it, and not because they really believe it.

For example, if you were a gay man in the 1950’s, and if you were asked if you were gay, you would probably lie and say, “no, you (expletive), of course not, I like girls!” And if you overheard another man answer in the same way, you would wonder: Is that man really straight? Or is he like me, a gay man, forced to lie?

Similarly, a man who didn’t love his mother would nevertheless insist that he did if asked. That man is a closeted mother-hater, hoping to pass as a mother-lover. And when he overhears another man say the same thing, “Of course I love my mother, you (expletive)!” he wonders: Does that man really love his mother? Or is he like me, unwilling to admit the truth?

To convince a man who hates his mother that you love yours, you must do more than simply insist upon it. You must find a way to present authentic evidence to support your claim — you must somehow find a way to convey the reality of your own feelings.

Writing is also convincing an American who hates his country that you love yours. In this country, the social pressure to be “patrotic” is so intense that many Americans claim to love this country without any true feeling. They call themselves “patriotic” in the same way many Americans say they “believe” in God — they don’t actually believe in God or love their country, but they pretend to feel and believe these things because that’s what’s expected of them.

Liberals are intellectually honest by nature. They resist pressure to lie about their own feelings and beliefs — and they resent being pressured to lie.

The point of all this is to say: I love my country. (Really. I’m not just saying that.) 

I love it that America is a stable democracy. I love it that America stands as evidence that a form of government where power and responsibility are broadly shared can provide harmony and prosperity for its citizens.

I love it that America was founded on the idea that “all men are created equal” and that these men (read: men and women) possess inherent rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I love it that America’s history has been one of expanding enfranchisement to include the poor, blacks, women, etc. – and today homosexuals can rightly point to the trajectory of American history as evidence in support of their claims to equal citizenship. 

I love it that “the American Dream” is an egalitarian dream, a dream that says everyone who is willing to contribute to society (by, for example, working) should have the opportunity to live a fulfilling life.

I love it that America is committed to protecting its people – through law enforcement, public education, food and drug oversight, zoning laws, welfare and programs like social security – so our economic growth doesn’t victimize our poor and middle-class while enriching the wealthy. 

I love it that America does not embrace a culture of endless expansionism, but rather accepts the notion that its borders will remain fixed — leaving the other nations of the world, and their people, free to pursue their own self-determination.

I love it that American culture is so diverse and exciting.

I believe that America has the potential to play a leading role in lifting the world’s people out of poverty and violence.

I am an American. As an individual, I can speak at great length about my own flaws and failings, my own imperfections, but when I look in the mirror, I am proud of what I see. Similarly, I can say plenty about America’s racial history, it’s Civil War, it’s poverty and crime, it’s culture of excess, it’s irresponsible environmental policies, etc. — but I love this country with all my heart. I do not believe that America is “better” than other countries — just as I, in true American fashion, do not believe that I am “better” than the other people in my life – but when I look at America, I am very proud of what I see. 

What I want is liberty, prosperity and security for all Americans. I want the American people to be free from violence, free rom famine and disease, free from slavery — free, in other words, to follow their own spirit! This is what I want and this is what makes me a patriot.

I have a hunch that Colin Powell feels the same way.

I used to think that everybody in America knew who Colin Powell is and what he stands for. But the reaction of the right-wingers to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama this past Sunday made me think that some of us may have forgotten. So let’s review:

Powell was a professional soldier in the U.S. Army for 35 years. He was wounded during the Vietnam War. While in the Army, he served a White House fellowship under President Richard Nixon, and served as a senior military assistant to Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. He was Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor for two years in the late 1980’s before he was named Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — the military’s highest rank — in 1989.

Wikipedia says this about Powell’s years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:

During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of Panama in 1989 to remove General Manuel Noriega from power and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, “the reluctant warrior.” He rarely advocated military intervention as the first solution to an international crisis, and instead usually prescribed diplomacy and containment.

Powell also served the George W. Bush administration for four years as Secretary of State. He has been criticized harshly — and correctly — for supporting Bush’s horrible decision to invade Iraq in 2003. We must hold Powell accountable for the role he played in initiating a war that has cost thousands of American lives — not to mention many thousands of Iraqi lives — and left America weaker and more vulnerable to its enemies.

But it’s hard to look at Powell’s career and believe he is “unpatriotic” — at least by my definition of the word.

But according to the right-wingers in America, Powell is not a patriot. Why? Because Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Here is what Powell had to say in an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC’s Meet the Press. It’s a powerful endorsement from a true American patriot:

I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years, as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years.

Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president.

I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.

And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of, do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president?”

And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched, over the last six or seven weeks, as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in, and coming out of the conventions.

And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem.

And that concerned me. I got the — sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.

And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired. But at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.

And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I have watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one, and also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.

I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that, on the Republican side, over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower.

Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines –ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about.

This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist.

But then, why do we keep talking about him?

And why do we have these robo-calls going on around the country, trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted?

What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for.

And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift.

I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.”

Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.

But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.

Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?

Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards — Purple Heart, Bronze Star — showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old.

And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross; it didn’t have the Star of David; it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.

Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now?

Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time?

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and we have to take that into account — as well as his substance. He has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world — onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason, I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

The right-wing defines the word “patriotism” in such a way that Powell’s endorsement of Obama is considered “unpatriotic.”

Jay Severin, my favorite right-wing Republican radio talk-show host, recently confirmed this right-wing definition while discussing Powell’s endorsement. (Before you dismiss Severin as a fringe kook, keep in mind that he worked for the presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush and Pat Buchanan, was a contributor to MSNBC, and “despite not having a nationally syndicated program, Severin was named 53rd most most important talk show host in the country” in 2008 according to wikipedia. G. Gordon Liddy was listed as 49th on this list.)

Real soldiers and real patriots do not endorse racists, Marxists and anti-Semites. … The Colin — Powell, that is — has thrown away his reputation, and his patriotism, and endorsed the Marx brother, the racist, anti-Semite Marxist Barack Obama. And it’s all about two things. It’s about the rehabilitation and rejuvination, selfishly, of the Colin — Powell, that is — career. And it’s about race. Colin Powell has chosen racial preference over the well-being and security of his country. Period. And everybody knows it. But nobody will say it, but a very few people, including we.

Understand that Jay Severin is using the word “patriotic” in exactly the same way that almost all Republicans use this word, and that includes John McCain and Sarah Palin — and although neither McCain nor Palin would have the courage to suggest that Colin Powell is unpatriotic, I’m guessing they both believe it.

That’s Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s definition of the word “patriotism,” and she was merely expressing the mainstream Republican viewpoint when she said she “absolutely” believes that Barack Obama may have “anti-American views.” And when she said

I think it’s people who don’t like America, who detest America. And on college campuses, a Ward Churchill, another college campus, a Bill Ayers, you find people who hate America. And unfortunately, some of these people have positions teaching in institutions of higher learning. But you’ll find them in all walks of life all throughout America.

she absolutely was using a definition of patriotism that would define Colin Powell as “unpatriotic” and “anti-American.” Powell was one of the people Bachmann was referring to — although she wouldn’t have the guts to admit it. When Bachmann said,

I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.

she absolutely wanted to expose people like Colin Powell, who is “unpatriotic,” by their definition, because he would endorse Obama for president.

And when Palin said this on the campaign trail in a Republican-leaning area:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Palin was absolutely using Severin’s definition of the word “patriotism” — a definition that excludes Colin Powell and others (like me).

And when McCain recently said

I couldn’t agree with you more than the fact that Western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most god-loving, most, most patriotic part of America, and this is a great part of the country.

he too was using the Severin definition.

The great thing about Severin is that he is willing to say what Bachmann, Palin, McCain, and the rest of the Republican Party refuse to say — that they use the word “patriotic” in a very specific way, and by their definition, Colin Powell is no patriot, not by a long shot.

So how do we put the Severin definition of “patriotism” into words? We all know, on a gut level, what Severin means when he uses the word “patriotism.” But how do we explain it?

And what will happen to our beloved America if this new definition replaces the definition that you and I use? What will we call ourselves then?

For another awesome example of what I call the New American Politics, check this out:

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) has conceded that he did tell a North Carolina crowd that “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God,” even though he initially denied making such a statement.

Now he says he didn’t mean it that way and he was just trying to rev up a campaign rally.

“I genuinely did not recall making the statement and, after reading it, there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way. I actually was trying to work to keep the crowd as respectful as possible, so this is definitely not what I intended,” Hayes said in a statement for Politico.

The comments were first reported by the New York Observer. When Politico linked to the Observer story on Monday evening, Hayes’ spokeswoman Amanda Little called and denied the report. Observer reporter Jason Horowitz told Politico he stood firmly behind the story. Politico left the quote in The Crypt blog but added the Hayes denial.

On Tuesday, two more reporters and two other witnesses confirmed the quote, but Little continued to deny it, calling the story “irresponsible journalism.” Little said she had just as many sources who would deny it, including Hayes’ staff and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who spoke before Hayes.

But then Politico obtained an audio file of the Hayes quote from radio reporter Lisa Miller of WFAE. Little backed down, saying that Hayes must have misspoken.

There was one small difference between the actual quote and the Observer quote. The Observer had missed that Hayes had included “and accomplish” in his comment, reporting it instead as, “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.”

Embarressing lies and hate-mongering. Hayes’ claim that he was just trying to rev up a campaign rally reminds me of this:

Last weekend, the chairman of the Republican Party in Virginia climbed on a folding chair and addressed campaign volunteers with a rallying cry linking Senator Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden. “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,” said the chairman, Jeffrey M. Frederick. “That is scary.”

The comment, exaggerating Mr. Obama’s association with the 1960s radical William Ayers, was reported by Karen Tumulty in Time magazine and it set off a commotion in the blogosphere.

Contacted on Monday, a spokesman for the Virginia Republican Party offered this defense: Mr. Frederick was quoting Rush Limbaugh.

“He saw a guy with a Rush Limbaugh shirt on, and he was trying to fire up the troops,” said Gerry Scimeca, the spokesman. “He was making a larger point about who’s prepared to lead the nation. It was a vivid way to drive the point home.”

At what point is it reasonable to accuse these people of trying to foment violence against this country?

We got a taste of the new American politics today (Sunday, Oct. 19) when almost-President Barack Obama walked into Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken in Fayetteville, N.C. to shake some hands and solicit support.

According to Politico:

Obama arrived at the barbecue joint around 12:30 p.m., where an older and majority white clientele of several dozen were eating lunch after church services. Many patrons applauded as he walked into the diner, but Diane Fanning, 54, began yelling “Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!”

Obama did not look directly at her, as she was across the diner, but it was loud enough that he most likely heard her.

In the same Politico article:

Later, Obama came to the long table where Fanning and other members of a local First Presbyterian church were gathered. He held out his hand to her and asked, “How are you, ma’am?” but she declined to shake his hand.

Fanning asked Obama about a North American union, and Obama responded: “Well, you know, I am opposed to it if it were happening. But it doesn’t seem to be actually be happening. The truth of the matter is there is no plans. I’ve talked to a lot of people, including folks down in Texas. There’s no plan to create a common government between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. That’s just not … that’s just not happening. I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell, that’s just not something that’s happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?

In an interview, Fanning said, “I still think he’s a closet Muslim.”

And toward the end of the article:

Obama spoke at length with many of the others parishioners at the long banquet table and got a much friendlier reception as he spoke about health care, taxes and Social Security. Fanning told your pooler, “Some of ‘em are just nicer than I am. I know how some of ‘em think.”

(I have no idea who “the pooler” is, but I assume he/she was a reporter of some kind.)

So what is the “New American Politics?” It’s my term for what American politics may look like after November 4. This new politics has two main characteristics: First, Democrats have a solid grip on both the executive and the legislative branches of government. Specifically, the President of the United States (Barack Obama) is a Democrat, and so is a solid, perhaps veto-proof majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Second, there is a very large and vocal minority of Americans who consider Obama’s presidency to be completely illegitimate and respond to it as if America were being invaded and taken over by evil foreigners intent on destroying this country.

The right-wing’s generals — loud-mouthed radio talk show hosts, The National Review, and Republican conservative political operatives will lead the resistance to this “occupation” of America by the left, and the foot soldiers will be people like Diane Fanning. Fanning’s angry exclamation of “Get out of here!” will be the standard line. This is our country! Fanning and millions of her ilk with shout. Get out of our country! Socialist! Socialist! Socialist!

It may be that the New American Politics has already begun. Even now, as millions of reasonable, well-informed, patriotic Americans are gearing up to vote Democrat this year, the political right is laying the foundation for their extreme response.

Here’s a relevant recent report from the Associated Press. It shows how the extremists are framing their resistance as the response of “real Americans” to the fraudulent and un-American Dems:

WOODBRIDGE, Va. (AP) — A top aide to John McCain said Saturday the Republican presidential nominee still has a strong chance of winning the state because of his support in “real Virginia,” the downstate areas far removed in distance and political philosophy from the more liberal northern part of the state.

“As a proud resident of Oakton, Va., I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia,” McCain senior adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said on MSNBC. “And that’s really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia, if you will, I think will be very responsive to Sen. McCain’s message.”

Program host Kevin Corke asked Pfotenhauer if she wanted to retract the comment, prompting her to reply, “I mean ‘real Virginia’ because northern Virginia is where I’ve always been, but ‘real Virginia’ I take to be the — this part of the state that is more Southern in nature, if you will. Northern Virginia is really metro D.C.”

Earlier this month, McCain’s brother, Joe, told those at an event for the Republican nominee that two Democratic-leaning areas in Northern Virginia, Arlington and Alexandria, were “communist country.” He quickly apologized and called the remark a joke.

Anyone who has spent any time in a small, rural New England town (as I have) can understand how vividly people perceive this distinction between the “real” residents of the town and everybody else. The “real,” long-term residents have deep roots in the community, and they claim that they are 100% a product, culturally, of that community. This distinction is so powerful that many New England transplants joke that they’ve lived in such-and-such-a-town for 30 years (they’ve raised their kids there, they’ve participated in volunteer activities such as serving on the Fire Department,) and they are still thought of as “not from here.”

There’s no question that in these New England towns, the “real” residents see the new residents as invaders — people who are looking to destroy the town as it used to be and replace it with something that the “real” residents find foreign and alienating, such as a Yoga studio on Main Street or a new elementary school with art and music classes.

In the context of an unserious conversation about cultural divisions, this distinction between the “real” and the “transplants” can be considered ironic and amusing. But in the context of national election, this distinction between “real” Virginians and those who are “really Metro D.C.” is deeply offensive and totally un-American. Every person in Virginia is entitled to a vote and every vote is equal.

If you think I’m reading too much into this, just consider McCain’s brother’s remark about “Communist country.” The Communists were our country’s mortal enemy for most of the last century, and for right-wingers, calling someone a ”communist” is similar to calling them a Nazi. 

For a starker picture of what The New American Politics will look like, take a look at this exchange between MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-MN. (I’m sorry it’s so long, but it’s worth reading. This is a really extraordinary political interview, I think.)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let’s take a look now, Congresswoman, at the radio tape message that’s going in a number of states right now, being put out by the Republicans and the John McCain campaign. It’s called a robo call. You just pick up the phone and you hear this recording.

ANNOUNCER: (From audiotape.) Hello. I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of that, Congresswoman, that what’s called a robo call and what Senator McCain said last night on Letterman?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I think it’s fun to have a sense of humor right now. And especially last night on Letterman, I thought that John McCain was extremely funny.

As far as the robo calls go, I think that the Obama campaign is very worried, because Americans are just now starting to find out about Bill Ayers and about the questionable connection that Obama has with Bill Ayers. These are legitimate questions. And I think the Obama campaign has a right to be worried, because they don’t want the American people to know about these connections.

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me talk to you. What do the connections mean to you, this connection you’re talking about between the Democratic candidate for president and his connection back in the ’90s with Bill Ayers, who was involved with the Weathermen group back in the ’60s and early ’70s, when he was eight years old? What is your concern about that?

REP. BACHMANN: I think it’s devastating, because this is an unrepentant terrorist who says he wishes he would have bombed more people. Remember, this is a man who bombed the Pentagon and was happy to be bombing Americans as well. This is not a person that the president of the United States would want to be associated with.

Had John McCain been associated with Bill Ayers, it would have been a nightly story. It would have been everywhere. But the media’s been kind of avoiding this story, and Barack Obama’s been avoiding it too. He actually did start his state senate campaign in Bill Ayers’ home, and Obama worked very closely with him on education matters — very liberal, leftist agenda of education matters as well.

I think that it’s important that the American people know that Barack Obama didn’t have a mild association with Bill Ayers. He had a very strong association with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers is not someone that the average American wants to see their president have an association with.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why is it of concern? What is wrong with it? Tell me what it tells you about Barack Obama. Does it say he’s got a character problem? Does it say he has a problem with his patriotism? Just give me a term for it so we can put it in a category. Why do you care enough to bring this up at the end of this campaign? Why is it an important election eve issue?

REP. BACHMANN: I think it’s important, Chris, because –

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, we’ve got a lot of problems in this country. Why is this so important that it’s being pushed out on telephone calls to all the key states now with two weeks to go?

REP. BACHMANN: It’s important because we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had over his life, and usually we associate with people who have similar ideas to us. And it seems that it calls into question what Barack Obama’s true beliefs and values and thoughts are — his attitudes, values and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States –

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay –

REP. BACHMANN: — which is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We’ve seen one friend after another. It calls into question his judgment, but also what is it that Barack Obama really believes? And we know that he’s the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, and that’s just after one year after being there. He’s the most liberal. Joe Biden is the third most liberal. You’ve got Harry Reid who’s liberal, Nancy Pelosi who’s liberal.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right. What’s the connection?

REP. BACHMANN: You have a troika of the most leftist administration in the history of our country.

MR. MATTHEWS: If you have liberal views, does that mean you have anti-American views? What’s the connection? I don’t get the connection. What’s the connection between liberal and leftist and anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: Anti-American is the point, because –

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, if you’re liberal, are you anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, the liberals that are Jeremiah Wright and that are Bill Ayers, they’re over-the-top anti-American. And that’s the question that Americans have. Remember, it was Michelle Obama who said she’s only recently proud of her country. And so these are very anti-American views.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.

REP. BACHMANN: That’s not the way that most Americans feel about our country. Most Americans, Chris, are wild about America, and they’re very concerned to have a president who doesn’t share those values.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, let’s take a look at Governor Palin, because she said something very much like what you just said. Let’s hear Governor Palin on the very same topic of the connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers and what that tells you about his view of America. Let’s hear.

ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (Republican vice presidential nominee): (From videotape.) Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country? (Chorus of boos.)

MR. MATTHEWS: So you think that’s a fair critique of Barack Obama, that his view of America is so — that America is so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists. You think that’s a fair comment.

REP. BACHMANN: It’s a fair comment, because Barack Obama does have a close association with Bill Ayers. It’s one that the American people have a right to have some answers to. And Barack Obama still hasn’t come clean on his relationship with Bill Ayers. It’s been under the radar, and only recently has it been coming out. And people need to know.

MR. MATTHEWS: So this is a character issue. You believe that Barack Obama may — you’re suspicious because of this relationship — may have anti-American views. Otherwise it’s probably irrelevant to this discussion.

REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely.

MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe it brings into –

REP. BACHMANN: I absolutely –

MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.

REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about. That’s why they want to know what his answers are. That’s why Joe the plumber has figured so highly in the last few days –

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. I’m not going to get off this.

REP. BACHMANN: — because Joe the plumber asked a question that a lot of Americans want to know.

MR. MATTHEWS: Sarah Palin was around today talking about pro- American parts of America, and assuming there’s other non-parts of the country. What parts of America would you say are anti-American? What parts of this country?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I would say that people who hold anti- American views. I don’t think it’s geography. I think it’s people who don’t like America, who detest America. And on college campuses, a Ward Churchill, another college campus, a Bill Ayers, you find people who hate America. And unfortunately, some of these people have positions teaching in institutions of higher learning. But you’ll find them in all walks of life all throughout America.

MR. MATTHEWS: What about people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the liberals you were mentioning a moment ago? Where would you put them? Would you consider them anti-American as well?

REP. BACHMANN: I would consider them to have –

MR. MATTHEWS: Are they anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: — far leftist views. I’m not going to say that they’re anti-American or pro-American.

MR. MATTHEWS: The speaker of the House is –

REP. BACHMANN: I will say the speaker –

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, you were putting them together. You put three words together — liberal, leftist and anti-American. How do they all fit together, those three terms — liberal, leftist and anti- American?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, that’s a good descriptor for Jeremiah Wright. It’s a perfect descriptor for Bill Ayers. And those are friends and people that Obama has pointed to as his mentors. In his book, Barack Obama had pointed to Jeremiah Wright as one of his mentors, and also Father Pfleger as one of his mentors. Two of the three mentors are Father Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright. Now, these are very strange, anti-American mentors.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right. This –

REP. BACHMANN: If people like that were John McCain’s mentors, you’d be all over John McCain.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this. This country is roughly divided now over the last — all our lifetimes between Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives. Maybe 30 percent of the country, 30 to 40 percent, is conservative, and self- described — people tell you what they are — and 30-some percent are liberals. Do you think those 30 percent liberals are anti-American? The 30 percent of this country that calls itself liberals, are they anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: I think the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large, the people who are radical leftists. That’s the real question about Barack Obama — Saul Alinsky, one of his teachers, you might say, out of the Chicago area; Tony Rezko, who is an associate also.

MR. MATTHEWS: He’s a leftist? I thought he was a business guy.

REP. BACHMANN: These are very concerning figures that are in Barack Obama’s past.

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought Tony Rezko was some business guy. I didn’t know he was a leftist, anti-American guy.

REP. BACHMANN: Yeah, that’s troubling too. Well, that’s troubling too. Take a look at these associations, Chris, and add them all up –

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let me –

REP. BACHMANN: — and this is the totality of the package that Barack Obama has been, in Sarah Palin’s words, palling around with. These are his friends. These are his associates. Very troubling.

MR. MATTHEWS: How many Congress people, members of Congress, do you think are in that anti-American crowd you described? How many Congress people do you serve with? I mean, it’s 435 members of Congress.

REP. BACHMANN: Right now –

MR. MATTHEWS: How many are anti-American in the Congress right now that you serve with?

REP. BACHMANN: You’d have to ask them, Chris. I’m focusing on Barack Obama and the people that he’s been associating with. And I’m very worried about –

MR. MATTHEWS: But do you suspect that a lot of people you serve with –

REP. BACHMANN: — their anti-American nature.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he’s a United States senator from Illinois. He’s one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti- American? You’ve already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: What I would say — what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you very much, U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Matthews asked several important questions in this interview.

First, he asked, “if you’re liberal, are you anti-American?”

Second, Matthews asked, “What about people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the liberals you were mentioning a moment ago? Where would you put them? Would you consider them anti-American as well?”

Third, Matthews asked, “The 30 percent of this country that calls itself liberals, are they anti-American?”

And fourth, Matthews asked, How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti- American? You’ve already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?”

The Congresswoman flately refused to answer any of those questions. Listening to the interview, Bachman said nothing to disprove the hypoethesis that she considers the Democrats in Congress and the liberal voters in this country anti-American. Un-American. Invaders. Usurpers. Occupiers, even. She called for an inquiry (read: witchhunt) into the patriotism of members of Congress. (Does anybody remember what the term “McCarthyism” refers to?)

Regards the Palin quote about “pro-American” parts of the story, here’s the details, as collected by The Huffington Post:

The reporter who broke the story, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin, sends over the following, extended quote from a more detailed version of the pool report.

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe” — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.”

Not sure how much this helps Palin out. Is the VP candidate saying that small towns are more authentically American than, say, suburbia or cities?

As Eilperin writes: “The upshot? Washington D.C. is neither ‘real America’ or ‘pro-America.’ Other parts of the nation? It’s unclear, but if you live in a small town, you’re probably patriotic from Palin’s point of view.”

(UPDATE: McCain also apparently subscribes to the diea that some parts of the country are less patriotic than others. McCain recently said at a campaign event, “I couldn’t agree with you more than the fact that Western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most god-loving, most, most patriotic part of America, and this is a great part of the country.” I assume he would say Massachusetts, my home state, is unpatriotic — for no other reason than because people like me live there.)

We can shrug a lot of this talk off because we assume that it represents a desperate, last-ditch effort by the McCain campaign to win this election. But is that really what Bachmann’s statements were all about? Is that even what’s really driving Sarah Palin’s comments? Or are these comments all about setting the stage for the right-wing’s resistance in the New American Politics?

I believe my favorite whacko right-wing radio pundit said it best during a recent conversation with left-wing radio host Jim Braude. Severin believes Obama is going to win, and is already talking about forming a “government-in-exile” to “ruin” Obama, to “destroy” Obama.

BRAUDE: This is a question. When you say, before the break, you said, you know, “I’m committed,” whatever it is — well, “committed” is a whole other issue — uh, I’m committed to ruin him (Obama). What exactly does that — we had a pretty spirited discussion yesterday on our show, by the way, we got a Tsunami of email about this. You know, you talked about the 40 percent who are hard core, I think you used the word “haters, etc.”, What does it mean?

SEVERIN: Give me 30 seconds to say.

BRAUDE: Sure, of course, and then I’ll respond.

SEVERIN: I think there is going to be a polarization that will make the personal hatred for Bush/Cheney look like a picnic. I think there’s going to be unprecedented — and who knows, maybe in 2012, beyond that even, but you know, who knows. But like everything else, I think there’s going to be a supercharged resistance to Obama that starts now, and is more resistant, more venomous, more visceral, than any we’ve ever experienced by the people who are out of power, if you will. And I’m one of them. I hope to lead it in New England. And I, with a clear conscience, beleive that, you know, I’ve read and re-read Emily Post, and I don’t believe there’s any, I don’t believe there’s any proscribed waiting period or honeymoon period to give someone you believe, who would be damaging to your country. I believe the patriotic thing to do is to try right now to circle the wagons, and assume that, Ok, we’re going to lose this one, how do we get this guy, how do we stop him from furthering his agenda. How do we do that. You know, quickly and effectively. That’s what I’ve said.

Severin may be right. If we take the shouts of “terrorist” and “kill him” at McCain rallies seriously, if we take it seriously that many people say Obama is a “closet Muslin,” if we take it seriously that major political spokespeople for the Republican party are drawing distinctions between the “real” Americans and the “unreal” Americans, the “pro-American parts of the country,” and the “communist” parts, if we take it seriously that Congresswomen are openly calling for an investigation into the anti-American views of their Democratic colleages, that Republicans are spreading deceitful propaganda about a conspiracy to replace the United States with a “unified North America” and a plot by a community organization called ACORN to steal the vote — and what it all amounts to is the emergence of a political movement intent on denying people like me equal participation in this democracy.

It’s time for liberals and Democrats to speak with one voice. This is OUR country.  We don’t want to fight a culture war, but we will not tolerate being shoved out of our own country by a bunch of ignorant hateful racists who think they’re entitled to first-class status and we’re obligated to shut up or leave. It appears a culture war is coming, whether we want it or not, and our enemies on the extreme right will try to undermine our democracy with more intensity than we’ve seen from a domestic resistance group in many decades. 

Nov. 4th isn’t the end — it’s the beginning.

The Economist, our most stalwart apologist for laissez faire economics, has published a noble defense of capitalism in its latest issue.

This article argues that “[o]ver the past century and a half capitalism has proved its worth for billions of people. The parts of the world where it has flourished have prospered; the parts where it has shrivelled have suffered.”  The rhetorical ploy at the center of this argument is to keep the definition of “capitalism” fairly vague, often with the purpose of conflating trade liberalization with capitalism, and to ignore the fact that those parts of the world that have emerged from poverty in the past few decades have done so very precisely by ignoring neoliberal policy prescriptions and by adopting highly interventionist economic policies, exactly as the U.S. did when it industrialized in the nineteenth century. 

There is also little recognition in this article that “true” capitalism has never really existed anywhere for very long and that the major fight within state capitalist economies has been between Keynesian policies and a version of the free-market cant which The Economist — for all its excellent reporting — has wholeheartedly supported, at least at the level of editorial policy.  The TRADE LIBERALIZATION EQUALS CAPITALISM formula is visible in this article’s defense of “Washington consensus” economic prescriptions — dismantling of capital controls, lowering tariffs ((Except for rich countries, naturally!)), privatizing state-owned enterprises, etc.  — which many argue partly helped contribute to the current economic crisis. 

Is anyone who opposes the Washington consensus by definition anti-capitalist?  Obviously not.

So one problem with this defense is that trade liberalization and capitalism are not equivalent concepts.  The more serious problem, however, is that The Economist doesn’t believe its own argument.  These purveyors of economic liberty admit that “[f]inance needs regulation. It has always been prone to panics, crashes and bubbles… Because the rest of the economy cannot work without it, governments have always been heavily involved.”  The newspaper moreover agrees without reservation that “[i]n the short term defending capitalism means, paradoxically, state intervention.”  The “global bail-out is pragmatic” because states “believe, rightly, that public capital is needed to keep credit flowing.”  Our friends at The Economist also note, quite rightly, that “[c]apitalism has always engendered crises, and always will.” 

So The Economist’s position is quite simple, really:  “capitalism” will always periodically generate crises, especially in the area of finance, which will paradoxically (and periodically!) require state intervention, at taxpayer expense.  At such inevitable periodic times of crisis, state intervention — often at a loss for the taxpayer — is necessary, for pragmatic reasons of course.  Right.  That’s The Economist’s version of capitalism for you in a nutshell — privatize profits, socialize risk.  It is almost literally unbelievable that the editors of The Economist could so overtly contradict themselves — not in different pieces, mind you, written by different authors with opposed opinions, but within the same article.

If this is what “economic liberty” looks like, the editors should not be surprised if the general population remains unconvinced of their argument, especially when the public is having its money spent periodically — and predictably — to bail out the financial industry at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars (or more).  It is not an exaggeration to say that by their own definition, the editors of The Economist don’t actually believe in capitalism.

The McCain campaign is so predictable and so shameless.

First, McCain drags this random “Joe the Plumber” into the spotlight to do McCain’s lying for him. Then, when the left responds by pointing out that “Joe the Plumber” is lying, McCain tries to malign the left for victimizing Joe.

Let’s review what McCain had to say at the presidential debate Wednesday:

I would like to mention that a couple of days ago, Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who’s a plumber. His name is Joe Wurtzelburger (sic). Uh, Joe wants to buy the business that he’s been in for all these years, worked 10, 12 hours per day, and he wanted to buy the business, but he looked at your (Obama’s) tax plan, and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes. You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people. Which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.

These are just lies. Joe the Plumber did not look at Obama’s tax plan and discover he would pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan. Joe would pay less under Obama’s plan. So Joe the Plumber doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Obama’s plan would not prevent Joe the Plumber from employing anyone.

Obviously, we can forgive Joe the Plumber for being ignorant of Obama’s tax plan. Joe the Plumber is a plumber, not a policy analyst. But McCain can be held responsible for making Joe the Plumber’s false, ignorant statements the focal point of his campaign. It’s disappointing and contemptible when a candidate lies about policy – but it’s far more disgusting when a candidate exploits the ignorance of an “ordinary Joe” to advance his own lies, effectively throwing relatively innocent civilians into the line of campaign fire.

Even Joe admits that McCain was lying during the debate, according to a CBS news report. 

Wurzelbacher said Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t affect him right now, because he doesn’t make $250,000. “But I hope someday I’ll make that,” he said.

“If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said. “But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.”

Of course, we already know that McCain is a disgusting candidate. The question is, will it work? Since the debate, the media has pointed out that Joe is not a licensed plumber and owes back taxes. Here’s what the McCain campaign has said recently:

“The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe,” Mr. McCain said. “People are digging through his personal life, and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.”

(Update) And here is what some guy at Pajamas Media had to say about the assault on Joe:

I realize it’s all about winning at this point. But someone has to ask: What has happened to the Democratic Party?

It seems like just yesterday that the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy was talking about income equality and civil rights and worker protections and going to bat for the little guy, the blue collar laborer, the everyday Joe the Plumber.

Now, the well-to-do elites who run the Democratic Party — and their surrogates — greet these people with brickbats. They insult them, talk down to them, and even try to destroy them. Isn’t that the sort of war on the working class that Democrats are always accusing those greedy and heartless Republicans of waging?

Who, specifically, is going after Joe the Plumber with a brickbat? Who is talking down to Joe the Plumber? Who is trying to destroy Joe the Plumber? Is this writer referring to people like me, who point out that Joe’s claim that he would pay more taxes under Obama’s tax plan was WRONG — and that Joe is either ignorant of Obama’s plan or lying?

The right wing is using cultural divisions to create an environment where John McCain can repeat a false claim by an “ordinary Joe” like Joe the Plumber and when Democrats challenge that claim, they can be accused of insulting and even violently attacking middle class Americans.

What Dems need is to find a guy with an all-American (in other words, white male Christian) sounding name and an all-American sounding job to say something sleazy and false about McCain. Then, when the Republicans try to defend themselves against these false, sleazy charges, we can just accuse them of beating up on poor old Kevin the Farmer or whatever.

How about this: John McCain voted against benefits for Iraq War veterans.

Wait! That won’t work! It’s true!

I hate to step on Lee’s excellent blog below on Joe the Plumber, but I just couldn’t resist posting these excerpts from a relevant New York Times article.

First off, the man with the all-American, working-class-sounding name and the all-American, working-class-sounding job is apparently violating the law. Did it occur to John McCain to check into this guy’s record before McCain made Joe the Plumber the mascot of his whole campaign?

Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He also never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Mr. Obama. On Thursday, he acknowledged that he does plumbing work even though he does not have a license.

Furthermore, Mr. Joe the Plumber has no understanding of Obama’s tax plan.

Mr. Wurzelbacher told reporters that the company he works for, Newell Plumbing & Heating, has two full-time employees: himself and the owner, Al Newell.

Neither Mr. Newell nor Mr. Wurzelbacher responded to telephone calls. And Mr. Wurzelbacher has provided only vague information on his and the company’s finances since talking to Mr. Obama. But if the plumbing business remained a two-person company and the net proceeds — after deductions for business expenses — were shared by the two men, both incomes would most likely fall well below the top tax brackets on which Mr. Obama wants to raise rates, as would the company itself.

Both, in fact, would probably be eligible for a tax cut, said Bob Williams, senior research associate at the independent, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, though the cut would probably be greater under Mr. McCain’s tax plan than Mr. Obama’s.

According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,100. One, with a hospital, has been settled, but a tax lien with the State of Ohio is still outstanding.

In his interview with Ms. Couric, Mr. Wurzelbacher, who voted Republican in Ohio’s March primary, said that his encounter with Mr. Obama had been prompted by his desire “to ask one of these guys a question, and really corner them and get them to answer a question for once instead of tap dancing around it. And unfortunately I asked the question, but I still got a tap dance.”

He added, “He was almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.”

I pay my taxes. Most people I know pay their taxes. I would like to ask Joe the Plumber to please pay his taxes. Is that too much to ask?

I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to ask Joe the Plumber to educate himself about Barack Obama’s tax plan before accusing Obama of “tap dancing” around Joe’s stupid, ignorant questions. That would be too much to ask.

But could you please pay your taxes? And could you please get a plumber’s license? Please?

UPDATE: A CBS news report says Joe the Plumber is acknowledging that Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t force him to pay more in taxes:

Wurzelbacher said Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t affect him right now, because he doesn’t make $250,000. “But I hope someday I’ll make that,” he said.

“If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said. “But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.”

Let me get this straight: Joe the Plumber tells Obama that Obama’s tax plan would prevent him from buying a business. Then John McCain goes on television and tells the whole country that Obama’s tax plan will prevent Joe the Plumber from buying a business — thereby preventing Joe the Plumber from creating new jobs. Then, it comes out that actually Obama’s plan wouldn’t raise Joe the Plumber’s taxes, but would probably reduce them. And this is Joe’s response: “He’d still be hurting others.”

Joe the Plumber is helping John McCain lie to the American public. When confronted with a blatant lie that he started, Joe the Plumber says, “I don’t look at it that way.”

I’m thinking Joe the Plumber will probably vote Republican this year. The Republicans are more his style.

Parts of last night’s debate revolved around a conversation Barack Obama had with a guy in Ohio named Joe Wurzelbacher, who is about to buy a business that is apparently going to have its taxes increased under Obama’s tax plan.  Speaking to Nightline’s Terry Moran, Joe — who says that Social Security is a joke that he “hates” — said:  “To be honest with you, that infuriates me.  It’s not right for someone to decide you made too much—that you’ve done too good and now we’re going to take some of it back.”

Joe obviously doesn’t mean what he says.  Joe is happy enough to have the market decide that you made too much, to take away money from you — the market’s deciding your job is worthless doesn’t infuriate him one bit, because (apparently) it is inherently just and/or infallible.  What infuriates him is if tax policy is designed to disproportionately help people (and businesses) who make less money than him (and his).  If the people, through the instrument of their elected government, make this decision then and only then does Joe become infuriated.  What Joe is really saying is:  “I resent the fact that someone might prevent me from taking everything I can via the mechanism of the market.”  Joe’s position only makes sense if you accept the infallibility — or at least the justice — of the market.  It depends on the idea that externalities do not exist — that the costs of transactions ought not include information about anyone other than the buyer or seller.  Does your company pollute our river?  “Well, that doesn’t matter — that’s just between me and my customers.”  Tax the pollution your business produces?  “Well, it infuriates me if you think I’m making too much!”

By his own (apparent) definition of someone deciding “you made too much,” Joe must also be furious about some other evil forms of income transfer:  public schools, public utilities, the federal highway system, parks, government spending on R&D, the Pentagon system, food stamps and other government assistance programs, not to mention Social Security.  All of these projects use tax money to create public systems that — overwhelmingly — disproportionately help those less fortunate than Joe.  Joe apparently believes that those who receive food stamps are, as the Wall Street Journal labels those who don’t pay income taxes, “lucky ducks,” and are perhaps simply insufficiently good at earning money for themselves on the market.  Those grindingly poor food stamp-using lucky ducks!  I’m sure Joe would trade places with them in an instant.

Also implicit in Joe’s comment is the idea that he earned all his money without the help of the abovementioned systems.  I have no doubt that Joe worked very hard to get where he is — and he absolutely ought to be rewarded for his effort and sacrifice — but Joe did not just spontaneously and in a frontiersman-like way create wealth from scratch.  His wealth was created partly with the help of other people — and their taxes — through many of the systems described above.  Is it infuriating to Joe that the government took money away from people without children to pay for his public education, that the government invested in building the highways he uses to get around Ohio, that the government funds the R&D that helps create world-class technology and wealth, that the government supports farmers who are probably among the clients of the plumbing company he is about to buy?

Just asking.