GOP has spent decades rebranding knowledge as elitism and ignorance as bliss

[Inmate Trump]

(The character limit in the subject line should be expanded a little more....)


https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trump-is-what-happens-after-republicans-spend-decades-rebranding-knowledge-as-elitism-and-ignorance-as-bliss?source=articles&via=rss


So granted this is not from an unbiased source but I challenge Republicans here to dispute any of it. They really have spent decades denying the truth and praising the uneducated.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

(The character limit in the subject line should be expanded a little more....)


https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trump-is-what-happens-after-republicans-spend-decades-rebranding-knowledge-as-elitism-and-ignorance-as-bliss?source=articles&via=rss


So granted this is not from an unbiased source but I challenge Republicans here to dispute any of it. They really have spent decades denying the truth and praising the uneducated.

Ignorance is strength

[Fuzzy Bear]

(The character limit in the subject line should be expanded a little more....)


https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trump-is-what-happens-after-republicans-spend-decades-rebranding-knowledge-as-elitism-and-ignorance-as-bliss?source=articles&via=rss


So granted this is not from an unbiased source but I challenge Republicans here to dispute any of it. They really have spent decades denying the truth and praising the uneducated.

Ignorance is strength

My initial response to the above quote is the idea of "Ignorance is strength" is true, given the degree to which so many these days seemingly can't handle reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

[mvd10]

There is plenty of evidence that a lot of the things in the New Deal weren't necessarily good for the broader economy and the American economy only really recovered during WW2. There also isn't a consensus that labour unions are good for the broader economy. The author is presenting his opinion as knowledge. Sure, they are valid opinions but they aren't necessarily true. The GOP has some kneejerk nationalist stances and their stance on climate change is deplorable, but I don't think the problem was as extreme as the author thinks (until Trump came along and apparently awakened the GOP's worst instincts). From 1992 to 2012 the PVI of college-educated voters ranged somewhere between D+2 and R+2.

[Xing]

Anti-intellectualism is nothing new in America, but it has definitely reached a deeply disturbing extreme, in that often a majority of the members of a political party believe many things which are easily proven to be false. It's undeniably true that one party is more at fault than the other (sorry, "both sides do it" folks.) A majority of Republicans (not Democrats) believe many things which are easily proven to be false. And Republicans who don't buy into "alternate facts" still often turn a blind eye to the magnitude of this problem on the right, and simply point out isolated instances of ignorance on the left, to "prove" that it's not worse among Republicans.

However, I don't think that the Republican Party is the only factor here. I think that our society as a whole has become much more isolated, and the prevalence of the internet and technology makes it easier for people to live in bubbles, and only receive and search for information which supports their world view. Many don't even do research anymore. They reach a conclusion based on gut feelings (or what they want to be true), and specifically search for evidence that backs up their beliefs, and dismiss any evidence which doesn't support their beliefs.

I will say, however, that "elitist" definitely is nothing more than an ad hominem attack used when someone has no counter-argument or evidence of the contrary that holds any water. And while there have always been ignorant people who refuse to accept that some people know more than them, this ideology now has more political power than ever before. Right now, it's like confirmation bias on steroids.

I also agree with the article's claim that it's absurd that smugness is seen as worse than ignorance. Not saying smugness is a good thing or that it should be tolerated. There are many smug academics, and it's incredibly grating and off-putting. But that's pretty much the extent of smugness. It's unpleasant and you come across as an ass. Ignorance, on the other hand, can have disastrous consequences if not addressed, and it's legitimately concerning how stubborn people have gotten in their ignorance. While smug people ought to get off the high horse, people who are ignorant of basic history and science need to swallow their pride, accept that they don't know everything and aren't always right, and actually educate themselves. I'm not suggesting that we mock and degrade ignorant people, but we should not be tolerant of ignorance as a concept, and should, as a society collectively search for the truth, rather than what we want to believe or what makes us feel good/smart.

tl;dr Many Republicans embrace anti-intellectualism (more so than Democrats), there are other factors too, ignorance is worse than smugness.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I have to give them credit for this strategy paying off in spades.

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

[Inmate Trump]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

Also on the right, they refuse to budge on any kind of gun control whatsoever despite school shootings and juvenile gun violence/death on what's getting to be a near weekly or even daily basis.  No one is calling for a ban on all guns, but I'm talking about ANY KIND of restrictions or better regulations at all--they won't even acknowledge that there's a problem.  Again, nothing comparable to that on the left.

[pbrower2a]

Movement conservatism (as opposed to the old pro-business, socially-nostalgic conservatism that promoted thrift and other forms of self-restraint as founts of prosperity) is a wealth cult in the sense that many Protestant churches are. In those churches you make allegedly-pious sacrifices (lots of tithing) and you will be able to get the bounties of American life. With easy credit just about anyone can get overpriced stuff at rent-to-own (when it is obsolete or broken-down trash) emporiums and slightly fewer can buy a spiffy Cadillac that someone cast off. If such fails, then the fault is with the backsliding schmuck who lacks faith. It is magical thinking, something questionable.

So what, I say. Proof of your wisdom is that you saved up for much the same stuff and have gotten a good credit rating so that you need not deal with shysters. If you must save for what you get, then you will recognize that going into savings to buy something means a real good-for-good transaction. Maybe you will do comparison-shopping. But this has no aura of religiosity. Not attributing economic success to any deities, I see no market magic in the formula. Back in the old days, pro-business conservatives never pretended that there was any magic in the free market.

Today it is different. The Right has abandoned thrift as a virtue for the common man. Get him in debt so that his fecal credit rating leads him to rent-to-own places and so that, if he has a college degree, he will take just about any job offer short of leaving the Big City to do ill-paid farm labor. (Let me say some good things about thrift stores -- we have a tile floor at our house, and anything ceramic breaks if it falls onto it. I have had to replace chinaware, and at times I have gotten better stuff than what broke -- dirt cheap).

The Hard Right has entwined itself with evangelical Christianity to push the idea that human suffering of the masses creates prosperity, and the greater the pain, the greater that society prospers. Of course the elites of ownership and management first get theirs -- and not surprisingly (as is so for amoral elites) they keep asking for more. They demand that people accept economic inequality characteristic of a fascistic regime if not a plantation, harsh management, and the destruction of the decencies of a liberal society so that in return for growth from which most people see no benefit that the elites get to live lives of ostentatious display -- and that the rest of us get vicarious delight from seeing people connected to the elites frolic in the few times that we get to see them.

As is so with other absurd ideologies, people need only a bare minimum of learning -- enough so that they can read propaganda, technical manuals, advertising, road maps, and warning signs... and do basic math. To learn more would be to do something inimical to monarchical despotism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Ba'athism, Iranian-style theocracy, ISIS, evangelical wealth cults, and the ideology behind Trump: critical thought. People fitting such an ideology accept the promises but don't complain when the elites fail to make the promises work. Democracy works when people hold elected officials accountable for failure and success.

Yes, there are authoritarian religions such as Roman Catholicism that strongly promote secular learning. Learning may be a double-edged sword, as the very Church that promotes secular learning to allow people technical success that allows people to put more into collection plates and to study source materials also allows people the means to access of critical material.  Critical thought that allows people to condemn corrupt government and shady business dealings keeps business and government more honest than otherwise, whether because people be too moral to do bad things to people who did nothing wrong or because as good and intelligent people they demand fair play.

A healthy community recognizes well-honed learning as a necessity for learning. The more widespread that high-quality learning is, the less special it is. That is a good thing. Where learning is rare, people with even modest amounts of formal learning who care capable of exploiting that privilege in commerce and bureaucracies. It is better that we have a few million people who can do differential equations and see little special about such. A healthy economy depends upon widespread prosperity -- which I define as savings accounts, insurance policies, and savings bonds. (OK, so perhaps you are 'in' the stock market as a buy-and-hold investor because interest rates are ridiculously low, and dividends alone are bigger than interest on a savings account).  Remember: it is thrift that makes real prosperity possible.    

Movement conservatism suggests that in return for monopolistic gouging, environmental ruin, poor public services (including educational under-funding), and privatization of the public sector to crony capitalists that prosperity will emerge. Of course it will -- and only for some tiny economic elites. People capable of critical thought recognize such as the fraud that it is. But that contradicts the idea that ignorance is strength.. or bliss. The fictional Oceania of George Orwell's 1984 turns language into a means of destroying thought by turning even words themselves into lies. A 'joy-camp' awaits anyone who shows signs of ideological backsliding, like recognizing the deterioration of life as something other than progress.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Movement conservatism (as opposed to the old pro-business, socially-nostalgic conservatism that promoted thrift and other forms of self-restraint as founts of prosperity) is a wealth cult in the sense that many Protestant churches are. In those churches you make allegedly-pious sacrifices (lots of tithing) and you will be able to get the bounties of American life. With easy credit just about anyone can get overpriced stuff at rent-to-own (when it is obsolete or broken-down trash) emporiums and slightly fewer can buy a spiffy Cadillac that someone cast off. If such fails, then the fault is with the backsliding schmuck who lacks faith. It is magical thinking, something questionable.

So what, I say. Proof of your wisdom is that you saved up for much the same stuff and have gotten a good credit rating so that you need not deal with shysters. If you must save for what you get, then you will recognize that going into savings to buy something means a real good-for-good transaction. Maybe you will do comparison-shopping. But this has no aura of religiosity. Not attributing economic success to any deities, I see no market magic in the formula. Back in the old days, pro-business conservatives never pretended that there was any magic in the free market.

Today it is different. The Right has abandoned thrift as a virtue for the common man. Get him in debt so that his fecal credit rating leads him to rent-to-own places and so that, if he has a college degree, he will take just about any job offer short of leaving the Big City to do ill-paid farm labor. (Let me say some good things about thrift stores -- we have a tile floor at our house, and anything ceramic breaks if it falls onto it. I have had to replace chinaware, and at times I have gotten better stuff than what broke -- dirt cheap).

The Hard Right has entwined itself with evangelical Christianity to push the idea that human suffering of the masses creates prosperity, and the greater the pain, the greater that society prospers. Of course the elites of ownership and management first get theirs -- and not surprisingly (as is so for amoral elites) they keep asking for more. They demand that people accept economic inequality characteristic of a fascistic regime if not a plantation, harsh management, and the destruction of the decencies of a liberal society so that in return for growth from which most people see no benefit that the elites get to live lives of ostentatious display -- and that the rest of us get vicarious delight from seeing people connected to the elites frolic in the few times that we get to see them.

As is so with other absurd ideologies, people need only a bare minimum of learning -- enough so that they can read propaganda, technical manuals, advertising, road maps, and warning signs... and do basic math. To learn more would be to do something inimical to monarchical despotism, fascism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Ku Kluxism, Ba'athism, Iranian-style theocracy, ISIS, evangelical wealth cults, and the ideology behind Trump: critical thought. People fitting such an ideology accept the promises but don't complain when the elites fail to make the promises work. Democracy works when people hold elected officials accountable for failure and success.

Yes, there are authoritarian religions such as Roman Catholicism that strongly promote secular learning. Learning may be a double-edged sword, as the very Church that promotes secular learning to allow people technical success that allows people to put more into collection plates and to study source materials also allows people the means to access of critical material.  Critical thought that allows people to condemn corrupt government and shady business dealings keeps business and government more honest than otherwise, whether because people be too moral to do bad things to people who did nothing wrong or because as good and intelligent people they demand fair play.

A healthy community recognizes well-honed learning as a necessity for learning. The more widespread that high-quality learning is, the less special it is. That is a good thing. Where learning is rare, people with even modest amounts of formal learning who care capable of exploiting that privilege in commerce and bureaucracies. It is better that we have a few million people who can do differential equations and see little special about such. A healthy economy depends upon widespread prosperity -- which I define as savings accounts, insurance policies, and savings bonds. (OK, so perhaps you are 'in' the stock market as a buy-and-hold investor because interest rates are ridiculously low, and dividends alone are bigger than interest on a savings account).  Remember: it is thrift that makes real prosperity possible.    

Movement conservatism suggests that in return for monopolistic gouging, environmental ruin, poor public services (including educational under-funding), and privatization of the public sector to crony capitalists that prosperity will emerge. Of course it will -- and only for some tiny economic elites. People capable of critical thought recognize such as the fraud that it is. But that contradicts the idea that ignorance is strength.. or bliss. The fictional Oceania of George Orwell's 1984 turns language into a means of destroying thought by turning even words themselves into lies. A 'joy-camp' awaits anyone who shows signs of ideological backsliding, like recognizing the deterioration of life as something other than progress.  

Unfortunately, I do agree with much of this.  I will emphasize, however, that many Evangelical churches are not part of a wealth cult.  The ones that are not get the least media attention.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

How about when the Sanders campaign branded as corporate shills Krugman and the other center-left economists who said that his health care plan was unrealistic?
Or those who said that a 15$ minimum wage was unrealistic and would do more harm than good?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, Puritanism was a broad movement with its distinctive characteristics being Calvinism and Congregationalism.

Second, the Prosperity Gospel derives mainly from the Arminian strand of Protestant thought.

Third, pretty much every major Christian group, Catholics included, have held that a Godly people will be blessed, but the perversion of that into Godly persons will be materially blessed is a fairly recent one.

So connecting it specifically with the Puritans is ludicrous.

[136or142]

First off, Puritanism was a broad movement with its distinctive characteristics being Calvinism and Congregationalism.

Second, the Prosperity Gospel derives mainly from the Arminian strand of Protestant thought.

Third, pretty much every major Christian group, Catholics included, have held that a Godly people will be blessed, but the perversion of that into Godly persons will be materially blessed is a fairly recent one.

So connecting it specifically with the Puritans is ludicrous.

I simply disagree. I think there is no question that the concept of 'the rich deserve to be rich because they have been blessed by God' started in the United States with the Puritans.  Maybe the entire Puritanical movement didn't agree with that view, but I don't think there is any question regarding the basic facts over this.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules


The "Weber thesis," as it’s known in scholarly shorthand, presented a key insight into the spiritual logic of capitalist accumulation in early America: By overthrowing — and demonizing — the vast religious bureaucracy by which Old World Catholicism had organized the worldly system of reward and punishment to uphold upright moral conduct, the Puritans who founded the colonies put the spiritual power to remake the world directly in the hands of ardent Calvinist believers.

The entire religious work of reward and punishment as it concerned individual worshipers shifted inward. It moved from the elaborate Catholic rites of penance and official forgiveness to a regime of rigorously monitored, unceasing self-interrogation. This devolution of power made American Puritans uniquely prone to anxious introspection. And that, in turn, helped transform the heretofore profane sphere of worldly enterprise into a key testing ground of personal salvation.

Calvinism translated Martin Luther’s famous slogan for the Reformation, "a priesthood of all believers" into a prescription for round-the-clock productivity. Business became a crucial outlet for all the many Puritanical anxieties arising from the stubborn opacity of one’s standing in the Kingdom of God...

Take, for example, the central paradox lurking at the heart of Weber’s argument: the genius of American Puritans in inventing a new moral code of "worldly asceticism." Ascetics in the Catholic tradition were self-denying monks, who diligently sought to dramatize their devotion by mortifying their flesh and submitting meekly to churchly authority. (For a pop-culture caricature of this outlook, see the deranged Opus Dei monk in Dan Brown’s anti-Catholic potboiler The Da Vinci Code.) The Calvinists cannily redirected such ascetic impulses into the vision of a divinely ordained worldly calling — which, in turn, spiritualized the accumulation of wealth as a means of winning and holding divine favor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to disagree that the Puritans were the founders of the 'prosperity gospel' that's fine, its history isn't my concern.  My concern is this false view that 'religion is inherently good' and the United States becoming less religious is the reason for the increase in greed and what-have-you.

[Inmate Trump]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

How about when the Sanders campaign branded as corporate shills Krugman and the other center-left economists who said that his health care plan was unrealistic?
Or those who said that a 15$ minimum wage was unrealistic and would do more harm than good?

And Sanders lost, so your point is moot. He was rejected by the voters and the Democratic Party at large.

[136or142]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

How about when the Sanders campaign branded as corporate shills Krugman and the other center-left economists who said that his health care plan was unrealistic?
Or those who said that a 15$ minimum wage was unrealistic and would do more harm than good?

I'm pretty sure that Krugman said the health care plan was unrealistic politically.  From an expert public policy perspective, how can 'single payer' be unrealistic when every other advanced western economy already has such a plan?

Edit to add: indeed that is exactly what Krugman said:
So it’s time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage — bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare’s cracks — should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn’t the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities...

I have nothing against single-payer; it’s what I’d support if we were starting fresh. But we aren’t: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldn’t be at the top of the list.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/healthcare-single-payer-children.html

The 'minimum wage' claim isn't accurate either.  There are public policy experts on both sides of that issue, and nearly all of them agree that the minimum wage increasing slowly over time isn't a problem.   In regards to Sanders' specific minimum wage plan, there were, as stated, experts on both sides.  Those who argue that wages are being held down due to the United States economy being increasingly monopsonistic almost certainly largely agreed with Sanders.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/6/17204808/wages-employers-workers-monopsony-growth-stagnation-inequality

[Maxwell]

look i'm no person to defend the GOP but the topic title reads like the beginning of a very bad Boomer lefty facebook post.

[136or142]

look i'm no person to defend the GOP but the topic title reads like the beginning of a very bad Boomer lefty facebook post.

It only does to those with false equivalency bias, which you must be suffering from.

This is actually pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHVX4yza8dk

CNN's Pathetic False Equivalency Bias Explained  Published on Dec 10, 2012

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's even more unfortunate is that a portion of the left has embraced the same attitude of anti-intellectualism and dismissal of experts whenever the latter dare to challenge the former and their proposed policies.

Name something that experts have come forth with evidence challenging the left's policies on a given issue but the left refused to budge.

In every group, I'm sure there's some portion (however big or small) that are idiots.  But among the left, morals and intellect run much higher than on the right at the moment.  For instance, the majority of the right doesn't believe in climate change despite overwhelming and ever-increasing scientific evidence supporting it; there is nothing comparable to that complete disregard of evidence on the left.

How about when the Sanders campaign branded as corporate shills Krugman and the other center-left economists who said that his health care plan was unrealistic?
Or those who said that a 15$ minimum wage was unrealistic and would do more harm than good?

And Sanders lost, so your point is moot. He was rejected by the voters and the Democratic Party at large.

He did his damage by discrediting these experts in the eyes of his activist base. And I'm doubtful as to if he lost in the long run. Just look how people like Booker and Harris rushed to support his plan not because they believe it's good policy but to avoid their branding as corporate sellouts by Sanders affiliates and their troll armies.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

That link doesn't prove anything about the Puritans, a group that originated in England, btw.  It has been adapted by some Evangelicals, and I'm not even sure that it's exclusive to them.  I don't like megachurches in general, but I'm sure that they aren't all bad.  Millions of Americans go to small Evangelical churches, but let's just ignore them I guess.

I said nothing about persecution, I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group.  

[136or142]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

That link doesn't prove anything about the Puritans, a group that originated in England, btw.  It has been adapted by some Evangelicals, and I'm not even sure that it's exclusive to them.  I don't like megachurches in general, but I'm sure that they aren't all bad.  Millions of Americans go to small Evangelical churches, but let's just ignore them I guess.

I said nothing about persecution, I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group.  

1.https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules

2."I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group."

You didn't use the word 'persecution' but if that isn't persecution complex, I don't know what is.

Here's the thing, 'evangelicals' aren't like blacks or women (I presume that's what you mean by 'other groups.' ) A person makes a choice to be a 'Christian' conservative, they aren't born that way.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to face push-back and criticisms.  'Christian' conservatives want it both ways: they want to be able to engage in politics, but to be treated as some protected group when it comes to facing criticism in return.

Also, as has been said by others before me on this, what 'religious' conservatives really mean when they claim they are being discriminated against is 'we can no longer discriminate against other people on the basis of our 'religious' beliefs.

I am aware that there are decent evangelicals as well, many of whom who have been active against Trump and Republican policies. (and have faced criticism from Republicans and 'Christian' conservatives for it.)

[pbrower2a]

 

Unfortunately, I do agree with much of this.  I will emphasize, however, that many Evangelical churches are not part of a wealth cult.  The ones that are not get the least media attention.


[/quote]

Want to do much good for a community and not get paid well? Become a preacher. Most, whatever their denomination, are good people. They visit hospitals and nursing homes and comfort people in (often terminal) distress and the loved ones of those who go beyond the call of duty. Many of them are effectively social workers.  The ones doing the wealth-cult stuff  are the televangelists who rake in the dough. I see those and I usually see intellectual and moral vermin.  

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The highlighted portion was NOT an ongoing assumption.  Perhaps Mr. Tomasky isn't as well-read as he asserts, at least not about Justice William O. Douglas:  "We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being."  (Zorach v. Clausen)  THAT was a presumption of our Republic until the secular liberals (at least some of them) of the 1970s and beyond worked tirelessly to reverse.  They, too, have been successful.

The result of all of this is a progressively Godless America where there seems to be no check whatsoever on unbridled sexuality or unbridled greed.  The 1% that grow richer by the say are no longer have their greed bound by the presupposition of a Supreme Being in our institutions any more than the radical feminists and LGBT activists.  Nowadays, we can be dead broke so the Walton Family can break records, but we can marry someone of the same gender if we can scrape up enough money for Kim Davis to issue us a marriage license that doesn't have her name on it.  You tell me if removing the presupposition of a Supreme Being has been this liberating thing.

I think your analysis is clearly wrong in that many of the most greedy and their non wealthy enablers ARE religious.  I simply don't believe you're not familiar with the Puritan Prosperity Gospel (and other similar Protestant views.)  You and I might disagree on the significance of that religious belief on politics, but it certainly exists.  I think the impact of this religious view on America is Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

This has nothing to do with the Puritans.  As a member of a church that holds the Puritans in high esteem, I grew up constantly hearing that prosperity preachers were heretics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, in fact it may be the majority.  I'm tired of how media coverage of Evangelicals is almost always negative.  The preachers at the churches I've attended weren't getting rich.

1.The 'Prosperity Gospel' started with the Puritans.  It has been adapted by Evangelicals in an even more extreme form.

2.If you have, for instance, 10 churches with 100 members each, and 1 mega church with 10,000 members, which is bigger?

https://aleteia.org/2017/02/03/blessed-are-the-winners-the-uniquely-american-prosperity-gospel-tradition/

3.I'm tired of 'Christians' whining how they're always persecuted.

That link doesn't prove anything about the Puritans, a group that originated in England, btw.  It has been adapted by some Evangelicals, and I'm not even sure that it's exclusive to them.  I don't like megachurches in general, but I'm sure that they aren't all bad.  Millions of Americans go to small Evangelical churches, but let's just ignore them I guess.

I said nothing about persecution, I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group.  

1.https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12289062/why-would-evangelicals-support-trump-in-america-the-money-cult-rules

2."I'm just pointing out that there's a quarter of the population that is almost always portrayed negatively in the media.  Sweeping statements about us are considered acceptable that would be condemned if said about any other group."

You didn't use the word 'persecution' but if that isn't persecution complex, I don't know what is.

Here's the thing, 'evangelicals' aren't like blacks or women (I presume that's what you mean by 'other groups.' ) A person makes a choice to be a 'Christian' conservative, they aren't born that way.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to face push-back and criticisms.  'Christian' conservatives want it both ways: they want to be able to engage in politics, but to be treated as some protected group when it comes to facing criticism in return.

Also, as has been said by others before me on this, what 'religious' conservatives really mean when they claim they are being discriminated against is 'we can no longer discriminate against other people on the basis of our 'religious' beliefs.

I am aware that there are decent evangelicals as well, many of whom who have been active against Trump and Republican policies. (and have faced criticism from Republicans and 'Christian' conservatives for it.)

1: That article made hypothetical connections at best.

2: I wasn't actually talking about race and sex.  I was talking about religion.  Actually, now that I think about it, it's similar to how people attack Islam.  People see horrific acts being committed in the name of Islam and then making sweeping generalizations about all Muslims.  People see a preacher caught in an affair and say "Look, those Evangelicals never cared about sexual morality."

For some, religion and politics are intertwined.  Religion informs my politics on some issues, and it is impossible to completely separate anyone's faith with their political views.  William Jennings Bryan's Christianity informed his politics.  So did William Wilberforce's.  Fuzzy Bear and I would both be considered Evangelical Christians and would be put in the same box with every other Evangelical Christian.  Yet FB and I have very different opinions on a lot of issues.

The reasons that most Evangelicals, besides those with a very compelling reason to distrust the post-1964 GOP, vote Republican now is that the Democratic Party has stances on social issues that conflict with scripture.  After several decades of this, the economic views of the average white Evangelical are similar to the average Republican.  Of course, this was helped along by people like Jerry Falwell.  Today, most Democrats regard the Christian position on homosexuality as bigotry.  Evangelicals now have another reason to want to stop that party, even if it means putting a bad person in office. 

But in the churches I've been to, there isn't much political talk.  It comes up once in a while, but I've never heard a pastor tell people to vote a certain way.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but we shouldn't all be put in the same box as Jerry Falwell.  Also remember that Evangelical Christianity is a worldwide movement, so in other countries you can find the same theological beliefs without the political aspect.  We also existed before Jerry Falwell was even born, and will continue to exist long after the GOP folds on social issues or disbands entirely.