Cognitive Dissonance, revisited

Well, that big brouhaha about President Obama's speech to schoolkids turned out to be a big ol' heap o' nothing, didn't it? Laura Bush thought it was a good speech to give to schoolkids; most teachers thought it was an appropriate message; heck, even most of the schoolkids who heard it thought it was a pretty cool speech, and said that it showed them that sometimes you have to try harder, it's okay to ask questions, and that not everyone is immediately successful at achieving their goals. When the President mentioned that Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, I saw one young lady who showed a look of stunned surprise, then smiled to her friend. After the speech, it was neat to see the kids coming up to shake the President's hand, some of them turning to their friends with an "Oh my God!" look. All in all, I'd say it was successful in its targeting of schoolkids to try a little harder, and to realize that what they do today can make a difference years down the road. It was a good message.

Even Florida RNC chairman Jim Greer, who initially opposed this speech because he felt it was pushing Obama's "socialist agenda" onto kids, came out and said it was a good speech and he was going to let his kids hear it. Of course, then he had to go muck it up by saying later that it wasn't the speech that Obama had "intended to make," that he rewrote it. Really? I wonder how Mr. Greer knows this? Did he see a copy of the speech that Obama decided not to give? I have to say, I'm amazed at his ability to understand the unspoken intentions of our President. That is some parlor trick.

A pre-speech question and answer session with a handful of students wasn't part of the speech, and I found it even more interesting. If anyone wanted to accuse the President of pushing his agenda, that's where he did it. Except it was kids asking the questions, and they were some good ones. One kid even asked about universal health care. For anyone who thinks that they need to protect kids from hearing any of Obama's ideas, I...I...I just don't understand where you're coming from. These are ideas, and discussions, and kids should be interested in the workings of our government and want to be engaged in the process. The restriction of dialogue and information seems positively medieval to me. I honestly do not understand why anyone would have a problem with that. (And let me reiterate: I was not aware at the time of the controversy over GHW Bush speaking in schools. I would not have agreed with any protests. Let the President speak.)

Now that I've learned what cognitive dissonance is, I seem to be seeing it everywhere. Whether it's Mr. Greer giving an actual compliment to the President, followed by backpedaling and justifying his initial protest because of his perceived "intentions" on behalf of the President, or the off-her-meds Orly Taitz who continues to file lawsuits stating that President Obama is a Kenyan citizen and filing not one but two birth certificates--both of which are obvious fakes--to prove it, it seems that our country is absolutely lousy with cognitive dissonance right now.

Oh, and Obama's "socialist agenda?"

Today I read an interview with Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the largest socialist organization in the country. Here are excerpts:

Q. Where on the scale does Obama fall on socialism?

A. There are many ways we can say that Obama is not a socialist, and that he is in fact governing as a centrist, but that doesn't necessarily get people to listen. Clearly the Republicans are saying it since that's all they've got to say. I don't believe they're going to stop making this charge.

It's good for me, we have more media attention as a result of this stuff than anything else in the last 10 years. When I announce our membership numbers, I'm contemplating sending Michael Steele a letter thanking him.

Q. On the school controversy, what was your reaction to people saying that the president speaking to schools is socialist? What goes through your mind?

A. The same thing that's gone through my mind every time the Republicans talk about socialism. It's silly, surreal, uninformed, and it certainly doesn't reflect what modern socialists think, and it doesn't reflect what Obama thinks. Obama's a market guy! Obama believes in markets. He probably spoke more about the role of the markets in the primary than Clinton did. So, there's no question that the Republicans are doing the same thing they did when Roosevelt was president -- confusing somebody who is trying to save capitalism from itself with somebody who is trying to destroy it. He's not trying to destroy capitalism.

And this school thing is just ridiculous.

Q. Is Obama a socialist?

A. No.

Q. Is he a secret socialist?

A. He's not a secret socialist. He's not any kind of socialist at all. He's not challenging the power of the corporations. The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far reaching. He says we must have room for innovation. But we had innovation -- look where it got us. So I just...I can't...I mean laugh out loud, really.

I was on Glenn Beck recently and he said Canada is a socialist country. Well, there is a party in Canada that's called "socialist" within the Democratic party, that's won some provincial elections, never won a federal election. It would be news to them that Canada is socialist. So it's just unserious.

They always use socialism to try to defeat moderate reforms...just because something is government run doesn't mean it's socialist. I've never heard anybody say we have a socialist army.

Read the full article here.

So let me get this straight: the right wingers are saying that Obama is a socialist, or that he has a socialist agenda. (I've read a few people who have called it "socialistical." Watch the extraneous suffixes, folks.) Yet the Grand Poobah of the largest socialist organization in the country says that Obama is in no way, shape, or form--or in policy--a socialist. He finds the suggestion "silly, surreal, and uninformed." Do you think that will get people to stop calling Obama a socialist? Not a chance. "Uninformed" is the key word there. As Llewellyn states, government run is not the equivalent of socialist. But the cognitive dissonance will continue, with people ignoring facts, logic, and reality.

Tonight, I'll be settling in with my hubby and we'll watch our President's speech to a joint session of Congress concerning health care reform. I'm looking forward to it, and I think he'll be bringing his A-game.

A brief interruption and a diametric opposition

Rabbit rabbit rabbit! Evil spirits begone!

We had some fairly strong thunderstorms come through Nutwood today, and our cable broadband was out for several hours in the afternoon. I tried to catch up as best I could, but I wasn't able to comment on every entry. Things seem to be working well now. Despite the rain, I had a window of opportunity between storms, and was able to get a little deck and reading time in!

Something has puzzled me lately. In reading various writings on Teh Interwebs, I've found a strange phenomenon from those who dislike our President and our current administration. They vacillate between two labels: fascism and socialism. Sometimes in the same entry.

I had to think back to what I learned in World History, and what I've read about it over the years, but I've always understood that fascism and socialism were at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Fascism is far right and reactionary, and socialism is left, on the pathway to communism. The definition of fascism that I found is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." For a fascinating article about the 14 characteristics of fascism, click on the link. I really don't think the far right needs to be bringing up fascism, because when I read those 14 points, it's not President Obama that springs to mind. I'm just sayin'!

Socialism is defined as "any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." If anything, this makes more sense than the former charge; our government (and all of us) now owns a portion of several companies. I feel this is limited, though, and temporary. Of all the businesses, companies, and corporations in this country, the number of those receiving bailout money is not a huge percentage. The vast majority continue to operate independently and without government intervention.

While I'm at it, I'll muddy the waters a bit by speaking of National Socialism, or Nationalsozialismus, i.e., Nazism. Although that particular movement contained the word and an element of socialism, those fascists were far removed from Socialism and Communism, and indeed, executed many communists. They were a totalitarian regime, exerting complete control over every aspect of citizens' lives, using censorship, propaganda, and hatred of "others," whether it was because of race, religion, or sexual orientation. Again...the Obama administration is not the first one I think about!

Am I missing something here? I honestly don't see how it's possible to be both fascist and socialist at the same time. When I read something that calls President Obama a socialist in one breath and a fascist in the next, it just makes me think "That makes no sense." Perhaps a fully coalesced argument might be more convincing, rather than cherry-picking pejorative terms designed to excite the excitable. Heck, might as well thrown in "grinch-like" while you're at it!

Tempest in a Teapot

Not only do I get to use one of my favorite phrases, I got to use it as the title of this entry! I'm feeling quite pleased with myself.

Yeah, today is the big day for the "tea parties" that Fox News has been promoting. I haven't seen anything about it yet on CNN, and I even turned it to Fox briefly (as much as it pained me) and there's nothing there yet, either. [Update: I'm starting to see a few things now.] I really don't know how big this is going to be, but I suspect it's not going to be the kind of mass populist revolt--the people speak!--that Fox envisioned. I won't be making any teabagging jokes, either, because I've already gotten my jollies with that, thanks to MSNBC. I couldn't resist the picture, though! And those poor Iowans...the state won't allow them to dump tea into any bodies of water because it is considered a discoloration and pollutant. So they have to put river water or dechlorinated tap water into buckets labeled "tea," and dump that into the river. Kind of takes the "oomph" out if it, doesn't it?

The problem I have with the whole thing is that it really doesn't make much sense, not when you stop and think about it. Protesting "high taxes?" We've got nothing on other countries. Out of 30 developed countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank based in Paris, only Iceland and Ireland have lower tax rates than the U.S. (for those who are married with two kids). Our taxes go to maintain roads and bridges, fund education, unemployment, Medicare, and so on. I'm kinda cool with that, you know? And I'm also cool with those who are at the top of the earning bracket paying a slightly higher percentage in taxes. It's a question of proportion. If you're making $3 million a year, you can afford to pay a higher percentage than someone making $30,000 per year. That doesn't mean that you haven't worked hard to get where you're at, but jeez, have some compassion for the little guy who doesn't have your same earning potential.

And as for those higher taxes, President Obama's plan gives 95% of Americans a tax cut . A CUT. Those making $250,000 or more per year will experience a slight increase...a taxation rate that happens to be about 10% less than what it was during most of the Reagan administration. Hm. I wonder how many of these protesters will get a tax cut versus getting a tax increase? They're protesting rich people having to give up a little more of their money, while they get to keep a little more of theirs in their own pockets? It doesn't make much sense to me.

In a story about these protests in our local paper this morning, a commenter wrote that he had joined one of these groups briefly, because he hoped their concerns and efforts were legitimate. He was disturbed by the tone, and said that it seemed to be very anti-Obama and anti-Democrat in general. Apparently one of the slogans that was suggested (and may be in use, although I haven't heard it) was "It took over 200 years to build this nation and just 3 months to tear it down!" Trying to place the current economic woes--years in the making--upon President Obama's shoulders is ridiculous. I suspect that many of these protesters are protesting our current President, and not so much the taxation part.

I believe that he is doing his best to pull our economy out of the dismal state in which it was left when he took office. Not everyone agrees with his tactics; I wouldn't expect everyone to agree. However, it seems that the majority of citizens express optimism in his efforts, and believe that we're on the right track. There will still be problems, including more jobs lost, in the coming months, but things do seem to be looking up.

Finally (and then I shall step down one level on my multi-tiered soapbox), let me talk about this "Obama is a socialist" mantra that I keep hearing. I put it to you that taxation is in itself a form of socialism. It is collecting money from the populace and redistributing it to various programs that are run by the government (as mentioned above, education, infrastructure maintenance, unemployment benefits, etc.). So anyone who pays taxes is participating in a socialist activity. Joe McCarthy is rolling in his grave.