Are We Too Cynical? Or Not Cynical Enough?

Frank Rich is wrong:

The previous transient scapegoat was the Democrats. They were punished in yet another “wave” election — our third in a row — where voters threw Washington’s bums out. But most of the public remains bummed out nonetheless. In late October, the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 31 percent of respondents believed that America was on the right track. When the survey asked the same question after the shellacking, the percent of optimists jumped to … 32. Regardless of party or politics, there’s a sense a broken country can’t be fixed. Few have faith that even “wave” elections are game-changers anymore.

He’s not wrong that people are bummed out. But I think he’s wrong that Democrats are the previous transient scapegoats. Dems are the standard default scapegoat, seems to me.

I think Rich is wrong here, also:

… the big money that dominates our political system, regardless of who’s in power. Two years after the economic meltdown, most Americans now recognize that that money has inexorably institutionalized a caste system where everyone remains (at best) mired in economic stasis except the very wealthiest sliver.

He’s right that big money has inexorably institutionalized a caste system where everyone remains (at best) mired in economic stasis except the very wealthiest sliver. But I think he’s wrong that “most Americans now recognize” that. I’m not sure they do. Or, if they suspect something, too many don’t suspect the big money supporting their end of the political spectrum and pulling their strings; they just suspect the other side’s big money.

To answer the question in the post title — I do think progressives may have gotten too cynical. This is not to say there isn’t plenty to be cynical about, but that an overload of cynicism has turned us into defeatists. Our politicians are slaves to The Sytem like everyone else. Democrats always will betray our expectations. Nothing will ever change.

But the teabaggers, for all their outrage, aren’t cynical enough. They’re like backwoods rubes lining up to buy what the traveling snake oil salesman is selling. And at the moment they’re the useful tools helping the more pernicious malefactors of great wealth become even more inexorably institutionalized. Palin, Beck et al. are the 21st century version of Rome’s bread and circuses — although less bread, more circus.

The New York Times reports that Senator Dick Lugar has been bucking the Republican Party on some issues lately, and for this some “tea party” groups are planning a primary challenge when he runs for re-election in 2012. The teabaggers say they are independent of the Republican Party, but of course only a teabagger would be gullible enough to believe that.

Remember John Danforth, former Reublican senator from Missouri? Danforth said that if the GOP ditches Lugar, “we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Senator Lugar has been trying to get Republicans to put national security ahead of political games and support the START treaty. Ben Armbruster writes for Think Progress:

Lugar has been reluctant to criticize his colleagues’ obstruction. When asked last week if they were just playing politics, Lugar said, “I am not ascribing motivations to anybody.” But other Republicans don’t seem to be holding back. Brent Scowcroft served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents and has been pleading with Congress to ratify New START. Profiling Lugar’s awkward position vis-a-vis other Senate Republicans on this issue, Politico reports today that Scrowcroft isn’t being as diplomatic as Lugar on the GOP’s incentive for holding up START:

In an attempt to rally bipartisan support for the treaty, the White House has enlisted the kind of GOP foreign policy wise men that Lugar exemplifies – among them former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker. But they have had no success with members of their own party, and it has left them scratching their heads over the source of the GOP opposition.

“It’s not clear to me what it is,” said Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush who noted that this START treaty is not very different from previous ones negotiated and ratified under Republican presidents. “I’ve got to think that it’s the increasingly partisan nature and the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory.”

Considering that the Republican Party is deliberately trying to destroy the economy, the health care system, and now national security just to win elections, maybe we can’t be cynical enough.

17 thoughts on “Are We Too Cynical? Or Not Cynical Enough?

  1. Remember John Danforth, former Reublican senator from Missouri?

    Would that be the Danforth of Clarence Thomas fame?

  2. I had read somewhere that the START Treaty carried with it an 80 billion dollar over ten years price tag. I don’t know if that is factual or not, but if it is, I can’t begin to understand how that kind of money could be spent to implement a treaty. When I read that figure I assumed that was the primary objection to ratifying the treaty. Of course the GOP’s desire to deny Obama any kind victory always factors in, but the price tag of the treaty in light of the current shrieks about the deficit might explain why some of the fiscal conservatives are putting on the brakes.

  3. MS defines ‘cynical’ thusly: “doubting or contemptuous of human nature or the motives, goodness, or sincerity of others”

    Goodness & sincerity – big money has neither.

    “Regardless of party or politics, there’s a sense a broken country can’t be fixed”

    We have passed the tipping point. Between a radical Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision, there is no way for Joan & Joe Citizen to join the middle class. We are becoming a nation where over half of its people live below the poverty line.

  4. I imagine the $80 billion is the amount that warmongering manufacturers estimate they will not gain if we seek peace through negotiated treaties with our fellow earthlings.

    If we’re going to be all ‘peace and love’ now that we’re beaten down, the threat will be more poverty along with more terrorism.

  5. For some further “fail,” please read Tom Friedman:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    It’s almost as if he was pissed that he didn’t finish #1 in the “Hack 30,” and is trying to win with a late entry.
    It’s called, “Got to Get This Right.” Which, ironically or not, but certainly unsuprisingly, he doesn’t, unless by “right’ he means “THE right.”
    He was a couple of good points in it, but like most of his columns, those good points are like lone dinghy’s marooned in an ocean of stupid.

  6. “but the price tag of the treaty in light of the current shrieks about the deficit might explain why some of the fiscal conservatives are putting on the brakes”

    That may be true but I haven’t heard anything of that nature, in fact Sen. Kyle is opposed partially because we are not spending enough to “modernize” our existing nuclear death fleet! This article talks a little about it , it also suggests the 80 billion is for Kyle’s “modernization” program.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/world/26kyl.html

  7. Those good points are just an anesthetic to take the sting out of his venom. Oh, did I mention to you Mahablog readers that I’m in the process of writing a book on the joys of pregnancy?

  8. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Mahablog » Are We Too Cynical? Or Not Cynical Enough? -- Topsy.com

  9. Swami, who’s the daddy?
    Maha, I never thought I’d miss James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, at least they CARED about something beyond the tribe, although Baker was the tool used to install der shrubin minkie.

  10. I’m thinking “Man vs. Wild”. Drop them all in the upper part of Alaska with a knife, some parkas, and Sarah Palin to lead them to civilization, or Wasilla–whatever comes first.

  11. The $80 billion is the price tag Kyle is demanding to pay for modernization of the US nuclear fleet. In addition to that Obama added another 4 billion the other day to try and sway them over. There is very little cost in actually implementing the treaty other than whatever bribes the party of no demands.

  12. erinyes,
    There is no daddy. I just thought I’d follow Tom Friedman’s lead and become an expert in writing about subjects that I know nothing about and could never possibly know any thing about because of the need for experience. I saw an aerial view picture of Frieman’s crib( an easy 20,000 sq ft house) and realized that if he’s writing about understanding the commoners financial pain and disillusionment with the economy then maybe I could be taken seriously writing about a female experience that I never could experience.

  13. uncledad, Steve from Canuckistan….Thanks for the info..I see now what’s going on. The Repugs have put Obama in a pinch play. Half of them want a political shakedown and the other half don’t want to pay the deficit building tribute. Obama’s got him a fox,chicken and grain dilemma on his hands. There’s a case here for Obama to take to the bully pulpit and let the American people know he’s getting jerked around and they( the public) will be the eventual losers if they don’t get behind him and put an end to the political nonsense. Maybe he should explain a little more clearly what he meant during the campaign when he said..” You are the one’s you’ve been waiting for”

  14. “But the teabaggers, for all their outrage, aren’t cynical enough. They’re like backwoods rubes lining up to buy what the traveling snake oil salesman is selling. And at the moment they’re the useful tools helping the more pernicious malefactors of great wealth become even more inexorably institutionalized”
    ^THIS spot on…

    I think you’re right… few have considered how much money from Koch-Coors-Murdoch-MellonScaife has been invested into precisely their opinion. There’s a huge return-on-investment for every dollar that’s spent on a Cato, Heritage, Federalist Society or Judicial Watch. That return on investment is the marching idiot (by classic definition of “idiot”) who has had his economic vulnerability and loss of legal privilege contorted into a reactionary movement for them.

  15. Everyone covered the important parts. I just would admit that I have always thought Richard Lugar was an intelligent and thought provoking man who was at least willing to find a compromise in policy matters, it would be a pity if he was too smart for today’s political system and was not re-elected…

  16. Crazy,
    I agree. Luger is the kind of Republican I grew up arguing with. I don’t agree with him on almost anything, but I could respect his opinion.
    Back in the day, Republicans also used facts and statistics, and could at least defend their position with something resembling reality and not just blind faith. And I think that’s the ulitmate damage that was done to the Republican brand when it decided to play footsie with the Relgious Right. It’s acceptance of any right-wing political meme as a blindly faithful Catholic believes the Pope is God’s infallable messenger on earth. Hence, ‘tax cuts INCREASE federal revenue’ is as accepted as one of the 10 Commandments.
    Ultimately, Luger and his contemporaries were enablers of what the Republican Party has become. And as mad as you want to get at the boy who cries ‘wolf’ too often, at least he’s still got sheep and sense enough to know that wolves can be threat to him, his herd, and his village, it’s hard not to get more mad at the boy who didn’t bother to cry out until he was left with no sheep, but plenty of wolves to herd. Good luck with that.
    They’ll run some racist moron in the primary with a nice face, and cwho an get by with Palin-like sound bites. A sensible Conservative, Luger will lose. And so will our nation. Are we being thrown to the wolves? I’ll let you decide…

Comments are closed.