Instead of Demonizing the Poor, End Poverty

In his column in the NY Times today, "Poverty is Poison," Paul Krugman takes on a number of myths that have been used to demonize the poor and those who argue for the moral correctness and the feasibility of eliminating poverty.

Krugman shows:

1. Poverty brings with it life circustances that can affect not just the quality of education but the actual neurological capacity to learn.

He writes: "neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.

So now we have another, even more compelling reason to be ashamed about America’s record of failing to fight poverty."

2. The War on Poverty of the 1960s did alleviate poverty to a significant degree, contrary to often repeated myth. Poverty rates were 23% in 1963 and went down to 14% by 1969. He implies much of this was due to the War on Poverty although he is not clear on the contribution from other factors, such as economic growth, anti-discrimination policies, etc. The poverty rate has since climbed, however, after demonizing assaults on such programs, most famously Ronald Reagan's demonizing attacks on Cadillac driving "welfare queens." In 2006 it stood at 17.4%.

3. One reason for the lack of attention to poverty is the idea that America is a land of meritocracy, where all can succeed through proper discipline and effort.

Krugman writes, however:

"the fact of the matter is that Horatio Alger stories are rare, and stories of people trapped by their parents’ poverty are all too common. According to one recent estimate, American children born to parents in the bottom fourth of the income distribution have almost a 50 percent chance of staying there — and almost a two-thirds chance of remaining stuck if they’re black.
That’s not surprising. Growing up in poverty puts you at a disadvantage at every step. . .
in modern America parental status trumps ability: students who did very well on a standardized test but came from low-status families were slightly less likely to get through college than students who tested poorly but had well-off parents."

4. Targeted programs in Europe have had success in mitigating poverty. Government programs can work.

Conclusion: Rather than demonizing the poor or their advocates, it is time for the richest nation on earth to put the shame of poverty behind us. Poverty can be alleviated if not eliminated if we have the will to do so. In this presidential year, John Edwards deserves our thanks for putting this issue on the political agenda of candidates Clinton and Obama, and the rest of us.

To read his column in its entirety go to: Poverty is Poison.

WRONG! Bush Mis-states Obama's Foreign Policy

George W. Bush told Fox News Sunday that Obama wants to "attack Pakistan and embrace (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad." According to Angie Drobnic Holan, writing on PolitiFact.com, Obama's real position is to "go after terrorists hiding in Pakistan if the authorities there don't, and he promised a diplomatic effort with Iran. We rated Bush's statement False."

This is taken from:
When presidents play politics
By Angie Drobnic HolanPublished on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 04:56 p.m.

To see the interview with President Bush click here.

WRONG! is a new feature of the Daily Demonizer. If you have suggestions for entries, please leave a comment.

Probing the Shuster Chelsea "being pimped out" Comment

It's been all over the airwaves by now. In a discussion with guests about Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster commented: "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Shuster has since apologized, and been suspended.

It's worth taking a moment to not only criticize the insensitivity of the remark, but also think about the atmosphere which allows and encourages it.

The Clinton's have been fair game for some time on issues of moral propriety, and the ground for this comment was laid years ago by Clinton-haters. This is the large grain truth in the commentary by Paul Krugman in the next post, when he refers to as the "Clinton rules" by which commentators are willing to say or believe most things about the Clintons because of who they are. The Clintons may or may not be guilty of various moral improprieties--that's a separate debate--but they've never been accused of being bad parents. Yet, demonization creates the conditions in which all manner of attack becomes licensed.

But there is more. Our media is obsessed with speed, cleverness, and ratings, so the commentators who survive as talking heads speak with great deliberation at their peril. Throw into the churning mix of rapid response and blather prejudices from years of Clinton bashing and it's not surprising such personal nastiness sometimes surfaces.

The medium isn't the message, but the medium encourages the sharp, quick, cutting, denigrating comment--ask Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh--and is partly responsible for the demonization in politics we witness today.

For a link to David Shuster's comments on You Tube go to Shuster's comment. And who's that laughing in the background?

Who's Tricky Now? Krugman Says Obama Supporters Almost "Cult of Personality"

In his column today in the New York Times the usually prescient economist Paul Krugman stands on the border of the “Nixonland” he so despises: “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo. . . the land of smash and grab and anything to win.”

Calling his column “Hate Springs Eternal,” he warns that the Obama campaign is on the brink of becoming a “cult of personality.” Sandwiching this broadside between attacks on Nixon, on one side, and against the Bush political machine on the other, he leaves no doubt where the hate comes from: Republicans and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

“I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here,” Krugman writes, “most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. . . What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” [by which]— pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.”

Krugman makes a good point. Too often in politics small flaws real or imagined are trumped up into major character defects, signs of deviance, or markers of outright evil. Sometimes this turns into outright demonization. As he claims, that was done to Al Gore and many others, including the Clintons. Is he now doing it to Obama and his supporters?

The key ingredients of unwarranted demonization are these: first, the leveling a very serious charge that someone is immoral, deviant or evil, and second, doing so without care for the consequences or providing the evidence.

"Cult of personality” is, indeed, a very serious charge. It's a claim of deviance, if not evil. Yet there's no evident consideration of the consequences for the people he is lumping together in his attack, really not just the Obama campaign, but its supporters as well. Nor is any evidence provided-- none.

Krugman seems content to use techniques that might make “Tricky Dick” Nixon smile. In saying Obama supporters are "dangerously close" to becoming a "cult of personality"--rather than saying they're already there-- Krugman can pose as issuing a warning rather than engaging in an attack--if only the misguided would come to their senses. Second, he suggests the charge must be true because others are also saying it--but he not only provides no evidence, he doesn't even tell us who said so.

Other assumptions also abound, such as Obama supporters are "happy with the Clinton rules." Or his implication that Obama supporters may not support Clinton if she's the nominee because they only care about "hero worship." Where is the evidence that has Krugman so worked up?

I would even go further to suggest that Krugman also stigmatizes Republicans as a group here, as if only Republicans are capable of demonizing Democrats through character assassination.

To read Krugman’s article in full and judge for yourself please go to: Hate Springs Eternal. To express your views to Mr. Krugman go to: E mail Paul Krugman.

Romney Demonizes Dems in Opening Bid for 2012 Nomination

Mitt Romney "suspended" his campaign for the nomination of his party for President on Thursday, saying, according to CNN, that continuing would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."

This exit this year should be understood for what it is, the beginning of his campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, should John McCain fail to capture the White House in November.

Romney wasn't content to bow out gracefully, however, but did so in a way that demonized Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in order to score future points with conservatives. Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference, he said:

"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Romney made the announcement Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
With Romney out, Sen. John McCain is locked in as the front-runner in the GOP race.

Coulter's "Apology" Demonizes Edwards

Ann Coulter was criticized for her comments reported in the last post by Republican candidates for President McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, she said:

“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Ann Coulter, At it Again

March 3, 2007, 10:32 am

Fallout Over Coulter’s Anti-Gay Remark

By Adam Nagourney

There’s some big fallout from the meeting in Washington of the Conservative Political Action Conference, three days of conferencing, caucusing, presidential addressing and book-hawking. These conferences have historically been known for displaying what its own organizers would describe as over-the-top behavior, and one of the regular speakers – Ann Coulter – offered an example of it when she used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and Democratic presidential contender.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards,” she said, speaking to an overflow room of activists.
That rehab remark was apparently a reference to Isaiah Washington, one of the stars on Grey’s Anatomy, a television series, who called a co-star T.R. Knight anti-gay names and went to rehabilitation over it.

Mr. Edwards’s campaign quickly responded.
“John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.”

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, said: “There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds.”

Democrats were not the only denouncing Ms. Coulter. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, a Republican candidate for president who did not attend.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

The question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside, the Edwards campaign saw an opportunity in the remarks of a woman who is about as popular in liberal Democratic circles as Hillary Rodham Clinton is in Republican circles (not very). Mr. Bonior sent an e-mail to supporters last night urging them to make contributions to the Edwards campaign.
“If we can raise $100,000 in “Coulter Cash” this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it,” Mr. Bonior wrote. “John is not the first progressive leader to face this kind of slime, but together, we can make sure he is one of the last.”

Times being what they are, Mr. Bonior let in to a little bit of excess in his plea for cash. “Coulter’s attack was no accident,” he said. “It happened on national television at one of the year’s biggest conservative conferences. Dick Cheney and most of the Republican candidates were in the audience. She was even introduced by Mitt Romney.”

Mr. Cheney was not there. Mr. Romney preceded her and mentioned that she was speaking later — he jokingly referred to her as a “moderate” — but he did not formally introduce her.
That said, attendees said that Ms. Coulter not only spoke warmly about Mr. Romney but all but endorsed him.

Postscript: Check out memeorandum.com for a roundup of blog chatter on this subject.

Rumsfeld Calls Iraq Opponents "Appeasers"

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested in a speech to veterans that those who oppose the administrations policies in the Iraq war and the war on terrorism haven't learned the lesson of WWII: you cannot appease a vicious enemy.

Once again conflating the war against Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq, the Bush administration is trying to rescue its disasterous Iraq policy by smearing its opponents as weaklings in the war on terrorism. Really? Consider this, Mr. Rumsfeld. Had we not invaded Iraq, might we have used the 140,000 troops there and the billions of dollars being squandered for a more effective war on terrorism? There was no--let's repeat that--no terrorist threat directed at the U.S. coming out of Iraq before we invaded. No one wants to appease terrorists, Mr. Rumsfeld. Nor, however, will your smears scare us into appeasing you.

For the beginning of a news report on Rumsfeld's talk, see below.

Rumsfeld Says War Critics Haven't Learned Lessons of History . August 30, 2006, New York Times

By DAVID S. CLOUD

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups ''seem not to have learned history's lessons,'' and he alluded to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.

In a speech to thousands of veterans at the American Legion's annual convention here, Mr. Rumsfeld sharpened his rebuttal of critics of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy, some of whom have called for phased withdrawal of United States forces or partitioning of the country.

Comparing terrorist groups to a ''new type of fascism,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said, ''With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?''
It was the second unusually combative speech by Mr. Rumsfeld to a veterans group in two days and appeared to be part of a concerted administration effort to address criticism of the war's conduct.

Oldest Trick in the Demonizing Book

“There’s some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They’re not bad people when they say that, they’re decent people."-- George Bush, August 17, 2006

In saying this President George Bush tries to put a compasionate face on the kind of political mudslinging favored by his Veep Dick Cheney. But this is the oldest trick in the book. Why? You don't have to be Karl Rove to know that Bush's comment is the same as saying "Cowards are Good People Too." Huh? And, who are these cowards? Well the crowd that thinks the war in Iraq should have never become part of the war against Al Qaeda.

Taking all of this personally, Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responded by saying, “Misstating the Democrats’ position on Iraq doesn’t change the fact that the White House’s Iraq policy has been a tragic failure.”

The Al Qaeda Candidate and Liberal CNN

CNN's anchor, Chuck Roberts: ‘Might Some Argue That Lamont…Is The al Qaeda Candidate?’

In discussing the impact of the airline terror plot stopped by British authorities, CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts asked Hotline senior editor John Mercurio: “How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?”

Roberts here is at least guilty of letting people such as Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman set the terms of debate. This is exactly what much of the media allowed, when President Bush framed the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. This kind of rhetoric is not only malicious, it is dangerous. It makes it impossible to have serious discussion and debate about what to do about some of the most serious problems we face.

Joe and Dick: It was the Al Qaedaocrats that Beat Lieberman

There he goes again. Following in the wake of Joe Lieberman's defeat in the recent Connecticut primary, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed Ned Lamont's victory would help "Al Qaeda types" in the war on terrorism.

But wait a minute. Lamont is opposed to the way we are fighting the war in Iraq, not a vigorous war against terrorists. No matter. If you oppose any--you are with us or against us-- Cheney policy, you are at best a dupe of the terrorists.

For his part Joe Lieberman agreed: leaving Iraq as people like Lamont want to do: “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.” “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

"I am a Liberal" -- Clooney's One-Man-Stand

By saying loudly and clearly what many politicians are afraid to say, George Clooney has struck a blow against demonization in politics.

In the 1960s major politicians would proudly proclaim themselves to be liberals. Since at least the 1980s "liberalism" has become a dirty word, thanks in part to the efforts of President Ronald Reagan who accused Jimmy Carter of being a "liberal." Before becoming president, Carter had never been regarded as anything other than a moderate-to slightly conservative Democrat. Even as president, Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party for the 1980 Democratic nomination.

So charged has the "liberal" label become and so on the defensive have liberals and their policies become, anyone not considered conservative enough has become became fair game for this charge. This pejorative use of what used to be a respectable political label continues to this day.

Clooney deserves praise for standing up for what he believes and for standing up for those less brave or well positioned to stand up for themselves.

A note of caution: as liberals try to redress the balance, they should be careful. Strong tough disagreement is one thing. Seeing conservatives--or those merely not liberal enough--as the root of all evil is quite another. As liberals stand up for themselves in the fight against demonization, they need to avoid the temptation of self-righteousness that will only deepen the polarization that already exists.

Does Clooney give in to this temptation? He's on the edge. All things considered, however, Clooney has said something that needs to be said. And he's right on target in deconstructing why many Democrats in Congress went along with the Iraq war, and using this as a prime example of the harm demonization can do to democratic politics. We congratulate him.

Published on Monday, March 13, 2006 by the Huffington Post
I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!
by George Clooney

I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's a dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out. That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom at home by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "[Expletive deleted] you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."
Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, "but please don't say bad things about us." You gotta be a grown-up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

© 2006 The Huffington Post