Obama, Tax Cutter

Once again, the Big Lies of Fox obscure reality. The facts:

Crunching the numbers at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, analyst Michael Lind found that if one compares the cost of tax cuts in just the first four years of Bush’s term (2001–04) to the first four years of Obama's (2009–12), Obama’s tax cuts are bigger. The value of the Bush tax cuts were about $475 billion in those first four years, or about 1.1 percent of GDP. Obama’s total about $1 trillion, or 1.6 percent of GDP.

And yet Hannity professes that he would support the president one hundred percent if he cut taxes. Well, Sean, he has in reality. It is only in your fevered, addled, ideological brain that he has raised taxes.

How Torture Cost Lives

One small nugget from Ali Soufan's new book. Even when traditional intelligence gathering and moral interrogation was paying dividends, the order came down that torture and torture alone would be the American way, either by directly torturing or outsourcing it:

The CIA deputy chief of station chastised the FBI agents for reporting their [intelligence] successes, yelling at them: “Don’t you understand that nobody can stop these guys from being sent to … This is bigger than you. This is an order coming from the White House. There is nothing you or the FBI can do. You can’t stop this rendition.”

Advice To Romney: Give Perry Bait

And see what happens:

[A]s GOP consultant Alex Castellanos put it: "Perry has not won elections in Texas because he is loved. He has won because he sticks a fork in his opponent’s eyeballs."

There’s nothing at all wrong with having a reputation for hitting hard. However, if I were advising one of his main opponent, Mitt Romney, I’d start trying to test Perry to see just how far he takes it. Can he be baited? If so, his aggressiveness might be very easily turned against him. That is, at some point, an attack-everything candidate isn’t really aggressive, but recklessly reactive.

Malkin Award Nominee

"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme — only worse, because Ponzi schemes are voluntary and Social Security is compulsory," – Andy McCarthy, NRO.

Perry says he is doubling down on this matter as well. Except he isn't. He has switched from demonizing social security as a "monstrous lie" to advocating today that we need to save social security by being more honest about its funding shortfall:

We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come. Americans must come together and agree to address the problems so today's beneficiaries and tomorrow's retirees really can count on Social Security for the long haul.

That's a fair argument and a few fixes – indexing, minor means-testing – could save it easily. Let's see if Perry proposes such small fixes – or whether he really wants to do away with it altogether. But will it work? Mataconis has doubts:

There’s already plenty of tape out there of Rick Perry making these statements that his opponents can use in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and if they use it you know that the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party, and all the pro-Democrat 527 groups and SuperPACs will be using it too. If Perry has to explain himself again every time one of those ads comes, out, it could turn out to be a problem. I’m not sure it will be fatal for Perry, but this is clearly one of those situations where a candidates words will be used against him, again and again and again.

Rogue Alert, Ctd

The craven Chicago Tribune has pulled the Doonesbury strip from its pages this week because it contains nuggets from Joe McGinniss's new book on the real Sarah Palin. Here's the offending first instalment. Money quote:

The paper says in an A2 note that “the subject matter does not meet our standards of fairness [because] the strips include excerpts from a book that is not yet on the market and therefore unavailable for review or verification by the Tribune.”

But it's a fucking cartoon! The character featured in it is fictional. Jesus. Did they treat Palin's own delusional "Going Rogue" as if it had been fact-checked? It wasn't. But The Rogue has been fact-checked within an inch of its life.

One of the fascinating aspects of the coming Rogue whirlwind will be how the MSM handles it. Can they handle the Palinista blowback? Are they so afraid of being called "liberal"? Will they even note the existence of Chapter 19?

A Special Kind Of Pot

This does not appear to be fictional:

It begins with a freshly showered person riding naked for hours on a clean, washed horse inside a two-meter-high "forest" of marijuana. Afterwards, the human body and that of the horse are covered with a thick layer of resin mixed with sweat. This produces a substance that is usually dark brown in color, which is then thoroughly scraped off the human and horse's bodies […] But it is a lot harder to produce this form of the drug because you need more time to make it. Imagine 10, 20, or 30 individuals running or riding naked in a field of wild marijuana. It goes without saying that they are more exposed and it is easier to catch them. Nonetheless, people do it and they have been doing it since time immemorial.

Sweaty male Kazakh resin. Mmmmm. Just in time for the GOP primary season. (You've got to get through it somehow).

Republicanism As Religion

120493355

The Dish covered the remarkable web essay of Mike Lofgren, but I didn’t comment myself because it so closely follows my own argument in “The Conservative Soul” and on this blog, that it felt somewhat superfluous. But I want to draw attention to the crux of the piece, because if we are to understand how the right became so unmoored from prudence, moderation and tradition and became so infatuated with recklessness, extremism and revolution, we need to understand how it happened.

It is, of course, as my shrink never fails to point out, multi-determined. But here is Lofgren’s attempt at a Rosebud:

How did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs – economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism – come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?

It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes – at least in the minds of followers – all three of the GOP’s main tenets.

That too is my view: that the GOP, deep down, is behaving as a religious movement, not as a political party, and a radical religious movement at that. Lofgren sees the “Prosperity Gospel” as a divine blessing for personal enrichment and minimal taxation (yes, that kind of Gospel is compatible with Rand, just not compatible with the actual Gospels); for military power (with a major emphasis on the punitive, interventionist God of the Old Testament); and for radical change and contempt for existing institutions (as a product of End-Times thinking, intensified after 9/11).

Lofgren argues that supply-side economics attaches to the fundamentalist worldview purely by coalition necessity. The fundamentalists are not that interested in debt or economics (they sure didn’t give a damn as spending exploded under Bush) but if their coalition partners insist on a certain economic doctrine, they’ll easily go along with it, as long as it is never compromised. If it’s presented as eternal dogma, they can handle it – and defend it with gusto. If it also means that Obama is wrong, so much the better. Most theo-political movements need an anti-Christ of some sort; and Obama – even though he is the most demonstrably Christian president since Carter – fills the role.

And so this political deadlock conceals a religious war at its heart. Why after all should one abandon or compromise sacred truths? And for those whose Christianity can only be sustained by denial of modern complexity, of scientific knowledge, and of what scholarly studies of the Bible’s Rick_Perry-Bush origins have revealed, this fusion of political and spiritual lives into one seamless sensibility and culture, is irresistible. And public reminders of modernity – that, say, many Americans do not celebrate Christmas, that gay people have human needs, that America will soon be a majority-minority country and China will overtake the US in GDP by mid-century – are terribly threatening.

But all these nuances do not therefore vanish. The gays don’t disappear. China keeps growing. The population becomes browner and browner. Women’s lives increasingly become individual choices not social fates. And this enrages and terrifies the fundamentalist even more. Hence the occasional physical lashing out – think Breivik or McVeigh – but more profoundly, the constant endless insatiable cultural lashing out at the “elites” who have left fundamentalism behind, and have, on many core issues, science on their side. So within this religious core, and fundamentalist mindset, you also have the steely solder of ressentiment, intensified even further by a period of white middle and working class decline and economic crisis.

That’s how I explain the current GOP. It can only think in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated, global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always bad. Government is never good. Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish America. Terror suspects are terrorists. When Americans torture, it is not torture. When Christians murder, they are not Christians. And if you change your mind on any of these issues, you are a liberal, an apostate, and will be attacked.

If your view of conservatism is one rooted in an instinctual, but agile, defense of tradition, in a belief in practical wisdom that alters constantly with circumstance, in moderation and the defense of the TEAPARTIERChipSomodevilla:Getty middle class as the stabilizing ballast of democracy, in limited but strong government … then the GOP is no longer your party (or mine).

Religion has replaced all of this, reordered it, and imbued the entire political-economic-religious package with zeal. And the zealous never compromise. They don’t even listen.

Think of Michele Bachmann’s wide-eyed, Stepford stare as she waits for a questioner to finish before providing another pre-cooked doctrinal nugget. My fear – and it has building for a decade and a half, because I’ve seen this movement up-close from within and also on the front lines of the marriage wars – is that once one party becomes a church with unchangeable doctrines, and once it has supplanted respect for institutions and civility with the radical pursuit of timeless doctrines and hatred of governing institutions, then our democracy is in grave danger.

If you ask why I remain such a strong Obama supporter, it is because I see him as that rare individual able to withstand the zeal without becoming a zealot in response, and to overcome the recklessness of pure religious ideology with pragmatism, civility and reason. That’s why they fear and loathe him. Not because his policies are not theirs’. But because his temperament is their nemesis. If he defeats them next year, they will break, because their beliefs are so brittle, but will then reform, along Huntsman-style lines. If they defeat him, I fear we will no longer be participating in a civil conversation, however fraught, but in a civil war.

(Photo: Lucy West of Kileen, TX, participates in the opening worship ceremony during the non-denominational prayer and fasting event, entitled ‘The Response’ at Reliant Stadium August 6, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Thousands attended the event organized by Gov. Rick Perry in order to pray for God to help save ‘a nation in crisis’ referring to America. By Brandon Thibodeaux/Getty Images. Also: Tea Partier by Chip Somodevilla/Getty.)