Tea Party irrationality reflected in Statesman Journal commentary

The Salem (Oregon) Statesman Journal editorial board positions have gotten increasingly nonsensical and right-wing -- a redundancy of adjectives, I realize.

My suspected causes are the arrival of a publisher who used to be an editor at the Orange County Register, and the newspaper's increasing need to suck up to the Chamber of Commerce in order to maintain its advertising revenues.

Last Sunday, a commentary by executive editor Bill Church reached new levels of editorializing meaninglessness. Though titled "Obama, please give us reasons to stay hopeful," it didn't contain any reasoned arguments for being unhopeful.
Download Bill Church Obama commentary

Instead, Church talked about a conversation he had with two unnamed men who live in the Salem area and wanted to explain why, in the words of one, "I fear for our democracy."

Apparently they never got around to this topic, because there was nothing in Church's piece that would make me -- or anyone rational -- fear for the health of our democratic institutions in the United States.

No mention of voting fraud, unconstitutional power grabs, or scary stuff like that. No, the men simply didn't like how Obama was handling some issues, such as the Gulf oil spill and health care reform.

Wow. Two Tea Party types are upset with Obama.

How this is the basis for a prominently displayed opinion piece in the Sunday paper is beyond me. I assume Church will be as open to writing about our generally favorable views about the Obama administration if my wife and I request a similar meeting with him.

This line in the commentary caught my eye: "They talked about cap and trade, and whether it affects homeowners."

OK, so what?

I bet the Obama-bashers didn't mention that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of taking action to prevent a global environmental and economic climate catastrophe is only $15 a month per U.S. household, or 50 cents a day.

Plus, the CBO estimates that the cap and trade plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution will reduce federal budget deficits by about $24 billion over ten years. So it looks like a no-brainer to go ahead with cap and trade, though stronger legislation would be even better.

Problem is, Tea Party critics of Obama don't use their brains the way they should. This was analyzed by philosopher J.M. Bernstein in "The Very Angry Tea Party" -- the best description of the Tea Party movement that I've ever read.

The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place where politics and metaphysics meet, where metaphysical sentiment becomes political belief.

...When it comes to the Tea Party’s concrete policy proposals, things get fuzzier and more contradictory: keep the government out of health care, but leave Medicare alone; balance the budget, but don’t raise taxes; let individuals take care of themselves, but leave Social Security alone; and, of course, the paradoxical demand not to support Wall Street, to let the hard-working producers of wealth get on with it without regulation and government stimulus, but also to make sure the banks can lend to small businesses and responsible homeowners in a stable but growing economy.

...What Lilla cannot account for, and what no other commentator I have read can explain, is the passionate anger of the Tea Party movement, or, the flip-side of that anger, the ease with which it succumbs to the most egregious of fear-mongering falsehoods.  What has gripped everyone’s attention is the exorbitant character of the anger Tea Party members express.  Where do such anger and such passionate attachment to wildly fantastic beliefs come from?

My hypothesis is that what all the events precipitating the Tea Party movement share is that they demonstrated, emphatically and unconditionally, the depths of the absolute dependence of us all on government action, and in so doing they undermined the deeply held fiction of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency that are intrinsic parts of Americans’ collective self-understanding.

Unfortunately, Bill Church fed these "wildly fantastic beliefs" by uncritically giving the two Tea Party guys a forum to express their feelings. Feelings can't be the foundation of national policies. Facts should be. 

In Newsweek, Sharon Begley expressed this imperative nicely in "Don't Just 'Do Something' -- we must put science first in the gulf." She discusses how Bobby Jindal's proposal to build sand berms along the coastline to keep oil out likely would harm the Gulf Coast, not help it.

Yet on right-wing talk radio we hear a lot of criticism that the Obama administration failed to approve this ill-considered plan immediately. Well, that's because the government is committed to doing things that make sense, not just feel right.

As Begley says, utterly correctly:

When a politician is faced with an economic or social mess, the “just try something” mentality can be justified. Policies on these fronts cannot be accurately predicted for the simple reason that human behavior is involved. No amount of science can reliably forecast the effects of, say, financial or health-care reform, so a reasonable case can be made for “do something.” Not so when we’re talking about the laws of physics and chemistry rather than human behavior. In these cases, ignoring the science makes politicians seem like petulant children.

Tea Party types also.

Comments

[Rain]

I'm not a tea party type but have reservations about cap and trade also. It sounds like another level of bureaucracy where somebody makes money for managing these 'trades'. To me a simpler approach is a carbon tax which would give the government money to do research on new energy ideas. It accomplishes the idea of reducing usage (if people care about the cost) but without that level of bureaucracy making money off it, doesn't it?

[Blogger Brian]

Rain, i'm not very knowledgeable about either cap and trade or carbon tax approaches to reducing carbon emissions. But clearly either would be better than the almost-nothing we have now.

I was sort of thinking "carbon tax" when I said that stronger legislation than cap and trade would be even better. Quickly reviewing the Wikipedia articles on these subjects, it does seem like a carbon tax is a better approach to fighting global warming. James Hansen, someone I admire, favors a carbon tax over cap and trade. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Because cap and trade is market based, I think Republicans in Congress are more likely to favor it than a carbon tax. After all, they like to call cap and trade "cap and tax" -- which I guess is supposed to be a derogatory term (I don't think taxes are bad, so the word "tax" doesn't scare me).

So this probably is why cap and trade is the Dems' favored approach. Sadly, even this minimalist proposal will have a tough time passing because of the do-nothing know-nothing Republicans in Congress.

[Rain]

What Republicans like about cap and trade, I think, is that somebody makes money off it. They are so scared of admitting that sometimes taxes must be raised that they cannot look at anything for what it is. I think Americans could be convinced on the carbon tax right now if it was pushed as a way to do research and production of alternative energies. Of course, who knows. Logic so seldom holds much sway these days...

[Mort]

If you would take a look at the DOE started by I think Carter to get us off oil and come up with other sources has done nothing and yet cost us billions just to grow government. I am sure Brian won't complain when his power rates go up by 40% along with fuel & food. Then it will be republicians fault not Obama's right. Cap & trade will do nothing except raise costs on everything & kill any chance of growth. I believe Brian would be happy if Obama just controlled his life for him, so sad.

[Brian Hines]

Mort, I'll be happy when we act to make sure that there is a viable world/climate for my granddaughter to grow up in. Sorry, but I have zero patience with global warming deniers who are willing to stick their head in the (increasingly hotter) sand and risk the future of our planet.

If this country was being attacked by another nation, we'd all mobilize to fight the enemy. The danger of global climate change is equally serious -- just not as dramatic. Our intelligence agencies agree that global warming is a real and present danger to the security of the United States.

I'm willing to pay 50 cents a day to help assure that my granddaughter will be able to grow up in a world that is as good, or better, than the one I grew up in. Are you?

[Mort]

Al Gore is so worried about it I'm sure, that's why he purchased beach front property I believe last year, it's a scam as is Gore. It might be different if he would practice what he preaches. It's all about the money.

[Brian Hines]

Mort, you're wrong. It's about the science, not the money. You really need to educate yourself on the science of global warming, along with how the American public feels about acting to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

For example...

A study found that 97 to 98 % of the peer-reviewed scientific research supports the IPCC conclusions that global warming is happening and humans are responsible for it:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/21/pnas-study-climate-science-media-balance-deniers/

And a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans support clean energy legislation that includes carbon pollution reductions, even if it means an increase in the cost of energy:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/24/nbc-poll-public-support-global-warming-action-cost-of-energy/