If the Republicans are degenerating into the Party of whites lacking college educations, it is hardly surprising that so many of them exhibit Cantor-like dullard-ness. Intelligence is not a highly prized or even recognizable attribute to the Republican base.

There is anti-intellectualism on both sides of the aisle, Steve. And if Democrats lose big in the 2010 midterms, it's not because they are intellectual and the American electorate is dumb.

The holier-than-thou intellectual attitude coming from you and other Democrats is wearing thin. Most Americans don't relate to the Ivory Tower intellectuals who see hoi polloi as something to be tolerated.

But I can't help but wonder what happens when confused conservative lawmakers control the levers of government, and the nation needs an immediate, intelligent response to a crisis.

See recent U.S. history, ca. 2000-2008. You might find some answers there.

The holier-than-thou intellectual attitude coming from you and other Democrats is wearing thin.

So is the weird pride your side seems to take in relishing in stupidity.

It's not so much lack of smarts that amazes, it's a kind of willed, cultivated cretinism of which they are proud, as though nothing could be sillier than good faith efforts to have and act on true beliefs formed and revised in response to evidence. It's very hard to understand what's going on in the minds, if 'minds' is the right word, of people who have seemingly rejected central elements of rationality.

That's of course to assume that they're sincere. The other theory is that these are exceptionally wicked people. Of course that may be a false choice.

Ya venture into international waters with the electorate ya got, not the one you wish ya had.

Yup, we're fucked. It plays like this. Just seconds before the whole human race gets obliterated by the approaching ice age, the gods return. They rescue the dim bulbs (I believe they harvest them as food or something). They then usher in global warming on steroids for the rest of us. Awesome!

How long has it been like this? Conservative Republicans in congress weren't always so incompetent.

Excuse me, I posted that before realizing there was much more to read.

I'd do a "spending freeze" if it included all governmental military and pseudo-military activities.

and, Hoi,

I think Steve is not talking about "anti-intellectualism" but stupidity on the part of the "right", an inability to predict the probable consequences of their actions. It also reflects the lack of ability to explain the whys or wherefores of their "principles" without resorting to "NASCAR or professional wrestling jingoism". I have also noticed that there are no more public people on the "right" who can logically explain their positions. It seems the intelligent ones have gone underground, or have realized their principles are grossly flawed.

The holier-than-thou intellectual attitude coming from you and other Democrats is wearing thin.

The comment was from Henry Paulson, not the Democrats. It was he, a staunch Republican who wrote in his book that the GOP lawmakers are "preening, ignorant idealogues.

Anyone with more than 2 operative brain cells can comprehend one main thought in a short article.

The holier-than-thou intellectual attitude coming from you and other Democrats is wearing thin. Most Americans don't relate to the Ivory Tower intellectuals who see hoi polloi as something to be tolerated.

Stuff a sock in it.

It's not "holier than thou intellectualism" to point out that stupid ideology masquerading as "common sense" is still, at heart, stupid ideology. Like this nonsense about how 'tax cuts create jobs'. Oh really? Go back and look at the unemployment numbers from 2001 - 2005. Huge tax cut for rich folks ("the productive class" in GOP speak) passed in 2001 - no jobs. They went back and cut their taxes again in 2003 and...no jobs. As for the bit about "tolerating" the hoi polloi, you're right. Most of us who do have functional frontal cortexes view you idiots as we would our own destructive children - we can't get away from you or get rid of you, and because of you, we can't have nice things, because you'll just trash them like you have everything else - including the idea that intelligence, reason, and logic are important.

Observation 1) What we see in Congress is a reflection of who our friends and neighbors are. Republicans love their representatives because, they are just like their voters.

Observation 2) The Republican Party Nominated John McCain who picked Sarah Palin - 'nuff said.

The Rs nominated John McCain who oicked Sarah Palin.

That.is.all

oops - I guess the error response was nothing, sorry for the double posting.

Or, to take a quote from another fictional character you wingnuts idolized, probably because he was retarded: Forrest, Forrest Gump:

"Stupid is as stupid does."

What is "holier than thou" about pointing out that even a Republican Secretary of the Treasury found the Republicans in Congress to be idiots? Is there something factual about this post that you disagree with Hoi? Are there ideas (on HCR or jobs or any other issue) that the GOP has offered that you believe have some merit?

Steve, which scenario is worse: knowing your opponents are "stupid" as you say or repeatedly getting your ass handed to you on issue after issue by people who are supposedly less bright than you are?

Jennifer - thanks for that

When Bush was in power, I saw the movie "Idiocracy" and thought wow this is where the repubs are taking us.

This reminds me of a snarky comment of a friend years ago..on another matter.. so to recast it:

An empty bus pulled into the parking lot and the Republican members of Congress got out.

"But I can't help but wonder what happens when confused conservative lawmakers control the levers of government, and the nation needs an immediate, intelligent response to a crisis."

Really? It doesn't take imagination, just memory. After 9/11 we managed to get into 2 long, deadly, wildly expensive and unsuccessful wars. Katrina left a city flooded and thousands basically abandoned for days with no credible federal response. A massive, dangerous bubble in financial markets grew for a decade with unchecked risk to the global economy while regulators slept and republican politicians cheered the deregulation leading us to the worst recession in 80 years.

These are some of the things that happen when morons run a government.

Observer: Republicans win because they cheat and lie. They trash the stimulus while touting the jobs it created in their districts. They buy a television network, then claim its news is fair and balanced. They start a war over Saddam's nukes knowing full well he never had any. They authorize torture, then blame on the enlisted personnel. They're crooks and liars who observe no rules because if they did, they'd lose. Why? Because they're stupid.

"Steve, which scenario is worse: knowing your opponents are "stupid" as you say or repeatedly getting your ass handed to you on issue after issue by people who are supposedly less bright than you are?"

When stupid people lie and obfuscate and pander in order to mislead their constituents - that's what's worse.

Observer said: "Steve, which scenario is worse: knowing your opponents are "stupid" as you say or repeatedly getting your ass handed to you on issue after issue by people who are supposedly less bright than you are?"

Being stupid is much worse. Unfortunately, being educated, intelligent or wise are not determinative for winning elections. If you don't understand that there's a difference between the ability to make good policy decisions and the ability to win a political campaign then you're a moron. More likely you do understand that but would rather try to get in a stupid dig which you think sounds clever.

"But I can't help but wonder what happens when confused conservative lawmakers control the levers of government, and the nation needs an immediate, intelligent response to a crisis."

The rethugs would do what they do best:
- Start another war
- Cut taxes on the wealthy
- Proclaim that any disagreement with them is treason

Personally, I har no doubt that tax cuts create jobs. Over a several year span, the more money peole have, the more they will spend. We're Americans, after all, we spend. Of course, those jobs are in China, Southeast Asia, Central America, Europe and the Middle East. What are middle class people buying with tax cuts? More stuff from the GAP made in Honduras? A new big screen tv made in Korea? A new iPod made in Taiwan? Maybe a nice new Honda fresh from Japan? Poorly made stuff from places they can't find on maps at Target? How about upper class folks? A nice shiny Mercedes? An even bigger TV from Korea? Some Italian shoes? A suit from Saville Row? As for lower income folks, not a lot made in the USA at Wal-Mart or JC Pennys.

More individual spending creates jobs among producers. We don't produce much of what we consume, so it's not helping us beyond a few sales jobs. The stuff that creates jobs, that transforms economies and prospects isn't bought by individuals, it's bought by communities, and has to be built here. That's roads, rails, power systems, water systems, telecommunication systems. Big ticket items, beyond the spending capacity of anyone not at the top of the Forbes list. And they aren't buying (how many turbines can Warren Buffett possibly use?

FOX News fans believe that recent snowstorms disprove global warming exists. Using this logic they should also believe that the New Orleans Saints are the most successful franchise in NFL history.

For those who don't follow football, the Saints are one of the least successful. But they just won the Super Bowl this month.

I've long held on to the following as the definition of "evil": evil is either coercing or misleading people into doing things that are not in their best interests, in order to serve your own interests.

That's what's been going on with the GOP for at least the past 30 years. The hell of it is is that dumb people don't get offended when their leaders lie to them and tell them obvious falsehoods - they aren't smart enough to take offense to someone else's assumption that they're so post-dumb that they'll never catch on to the con.

Lying is a loser's game. If you get caught, the people you've lied to lose all respect for you and faith in you. If you don't get caught - if the people you've lied to buy into the lie and believe it - then you lose all respect for THEM, for being too stupid to figure out you were lying. Either way, it renders mutual respect impossible.

The latter is how today's GOP ringleaders view their "base". And unfortunately, people like Hoi Polloi aren't smart enough to be offended by it. So they'll just go on getting punk'd by the punks. Being someone's bitch is bad enough - but to be the bitch of the dumbest guys around? That's at least a hundred times worse.

It's not that Republicans or conservatives are dumb. It's that they think in abstractions, taking ideas useful in one circumstance and context and imbuing it with the virtue of a Universal Truth. Notice how often since Obama has been elected that one Republican leader after another has instructed the party faithful to recommit themselves to "conservative principles." What's happening on the Right today reminds me of the Born Against experience of a penitent sinner as Republicans confess their wrongs, beg forgiveness and seek an absolution that allows them to take back the reins of power as if their past life as leaders of a corrupt political party and failed movement had never happened at all.

The great Achilles Heel of the GOP -- its complete lack of flexibility. Having a list of cardinal political "principles" that fits comfortably in your back pocket like some secular Ten Commandments is a great way to organize and inspire the party faithful. But it makes for extremely poor policy-making as principle keeps colliding with practicality. This is because the art of governing is more a reaction to events rather than a proactive shaping of them.

That leaves Republicans constantly having to choose the lesser of two evils. Either they stand helpless before the course of events, clinging tightly to principles which no longer apply. Or, they try to manfully meet their public responsibilities but find they can only do so through hypocrisy and deceit. They must either disguise what they are doing altogether so as not to bring into question their commitment and conformity to conservative principles. Or, they must stubbornly deny what the rest of us can plainly see and hear with our own eyes and ears -- that there are glaring inconsistencies between conservative's timeless and unchanging principles and Republican's improvised actions to meet the exigencies of the times.

That is how Republicans are able to reach out to grab stimulus money for their district in the same motion that they pull the lever voting "No."

Kahner:

So to turn that around on you: "Being educated, intelligent or wise are not determinative for winning elections" .... so therefore ***amongst themselves*** Democrats and their advisors, bloggers and loyalists should quit trumpeting their education, intelligence and wisdom and start talking and making plans on how to win elections and the actual issues that you believe in.

Presumably that would be your goal, right? To actually get health care, a public option, stop mindless wars, a fair tax code etc, etc.? Right?

Is that Steve's goal on this blog? To further the Democratic cause or to "fluff" his readers?
Because all I ever see appears to be preening about how much more intelligent *you*, his readers, are. Which by your standards, matters not.

Same on other blogs and apparently the same in the halls of Capitol Hill.

And while you preen the "stupid" Republicans keep handing you your ass on issue after issue.

Jennifer the harsh truth you just posted would be something that should change the chemical composition of some peoples brains to the point where they slap their heads and proclaim what the fuck!
Sadly it doesn't seem to be happening.

What are you talking about Observer? The last I saw, the Democrats have won the past 3 election cycles, successfully passed much of their legislative agenda, appointed the first Latino woman to the Supreme COurt and now stand poised to pass health care reform legislation. Other than their bold talk about their great chances in the upcoming election, on what issues has the GOP handed anyone their ass lately?

Ted,

I'd agree with much of what you write, but I completely disagree with your characterization of this as "thinking in abstractions." I pride myself as having a career thinking in abstractions (mathematics). People who think abstractly are quite flexible in their ability to think and adjust. The Republicans think like C- and D level students, who most definitely *don't* think abstractly. They need complete concreteness. Inflexible "principles" based on nothing is a form of such concreteness.

Not only do they celebrate stupid, they cultivate it. They've been foisted on their own petard, as it were. They had a tremendous run with right wing AM radio since the end of the fairness doctrine. But by now it's created a base that demands more stupid. Get 5 repubs on the same stage and it becomes a battle for the title of who's dumbest. If a repub says something thoughtful, das base grabs the pitchforks, the torches, the tar and the feathers. They've developed a culture that will only tolerate stupid. They can't solve problems, because they are punished if they think. All that's left is to keep rereading the same tired ingredients from the same old recipe.

It would be sad were it not so destructive to the country.

Steve,

The GOP goal is power without accountability. Whether or not they hold the presidency or Congressional majorities is irrelevant.

Pragmatic - I think observer is referring to the perceived success of Republican obstructism.

Jennifer - will you marry me?

Pragmatic - I think observer is referring to the perceived success of Republican obstructism.

Jennifer - will you marry me?

Ok, I was gonna let my previous comment be my last on this topic, but Observer's comment leads me to this:

During the 2004 election, whenever I would get into a discussion with a die-hard Bushie, I would just say, "I only have one litmus test for presidential candidates: they have to be at least as smart as I am, or I'm not voting for them. I don't hire people to do jobs for me that I could do better myself, so I'm not going to vote for a guy who can't do the job at least as well as I can. Do you think Bush is smarter than you are?"

Usually this would lead to stuttering or a gaping mouth response, but a few times, people countered that no, they didn't think Bush was smarter than they were. So then I would ask, "do you think you would make a good president? If not, what makes you think it's a good idea for a guy who isn't as smart as you to be leader of the free world?" This would be followed by stuttering or a gaping mouth response.

I should note, not one single time in the dozens of times I had this conversation with loyal Bushists - not once did one of them admit to being dumber than George Bush. I have to conclude that the man's lack of intellect was apparent to even his most ardent supporters, yet they continued to deify him anyway.

Hoi Polloi Wingnuttia, it's not elitist or condescending to expect people to know the information required for them to do their jobs. I don't care if a Congressman has an associate's degree from Podunk CC or a PhD from Harvard, as long as he's willing to learn what he needs to know on the job about policy and international affairs. The likes of Michele Bachmann and Virginia Foxx don't bother to do so, don't care, and take pride in it. The same is true of Sarah Palin. It doesn't matter whether they're stupid or just ignorant. I don't think Palin is stupid, I think she's very skillful at demagoguery, but lacks the qualifications for governing and has displayed beyond doubt that she doesn't intend to acquire them. And THAT'S the problem here.

What about that "perceived" success? What have they actually obstructed so far? Sure, they have been idiotically screeching and blindly voting no on everything, but what have they actually obstructed?

The wise Latina - passed.
Stimulus - too small but passed.
Lily Ledbetter - passed

Is there a single piece of the Democratic agenda that has not either passed or remains pending?

What have the idiots actually obstructed?

"The stuff that creates jobs, that transforms economies and prospects isn't bought by individuals, it's bought by communities, and has to be built here. That's roads, rails, power systems, water systems, telecommunication systems. Big ticket items, beyond the spending capacity of anyone not at the top of the Forbes list. And they aren't buying (how many turbines can Warren Buffett possibly use??"

Bravo, Northzax!!!!!

And, regarding the Pence, Cantor, Hoekstra, King, Boner, et al party, allow me to quote the great American political philosopher Ron White: "Ya Can't Fix Stupid."

They've been foisted on their own petard, as it were.

If you had just changed one word, you would have won the internets for today:

They've been foisted on their own retard, as it were.

"hoisted on their own retard" would have won, as well.

The multinationals don't want thinkers. They want empty policy vessels who want to be rich and who know how to exploit divisions - see CPAC (Get Your Hate On!). Sadly, with the recent Citizens United decision, we'll be seeing alot more of those, as if we don't have enough already. Hank's error was in meeting with Cantor. He should have just went directly to the lobbyists.

Stupid rises to the top for several reasons:
1. Our crazily gerrymandered congressional districts enable idiots to get elected and stay there.
2. Money does not select against stupidity.
3. The leadership creates the stupid messages and the cowering members oblige and parrot them.
4. The media does not call stupidity. It just passes it on without analysis.
5. Voters are increasingly ill informed and tend to think in oft repeated soundbites they hear in the media and what is echoed endlessly in their communities.
6. Higher education does not correlate strongly with intelligence or curiosity. To many it is just a ticket. There are tons of college educated dudes that only read the sports pages (and maybe the Wall Street Journal editorials and/or listen to Rush)
7. All of these arguments are easily passed off as empty criticisms by condescending liberal pricks like myself.

To paraphrase Mark Twain's remark about telling the truth, Jennifer pleases some and annoys the rest. . .

To measure the intellect of the Average American, one need only look at today's wildly popular -and profitable- Reality TeeVee. Idol, Survivor, the one where people eat bugs. Back in the 20th C. there was Hollywood Squares, the Dating Game, Queen for a Day.

Hoi poloi, indeed. Menkin had it right.

Unfortunately, their sperm is extremely viable, and they breed early and often. . .

OMG, Paulson has now been revealed as an Obama mole.

Today, Republican calls for tax cuts are more habitual than intellectual. They can't explain why their proposals make sense or what they hope to accomplish. There's no economic theory or policy analysis. Tax cuts create jobs. Why? Because they do.

Their problem is, their preferred paradigm cannot explain Clinton. Their paradigm is, less is more. If you tax less businesses will thrive and you will increase government revenue. If you hold down the minimum wage (or better yet, do away with it all together) businesses will thrive and hire more people. Clinton raised taxes and the minimum wage and exactly the opposite of what they predicted happened. Businesses thrived and employment boomed like it was the 1950s all over again (another period of high taxes). The facts were clearly and unambiguously against them. Their choice? shift their paradigm, or study Mein Kampf ("The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands...")

It appears as though they went the Mein Kampf route and now must rely on propaganda to sell their program since reality has a well-known liberal bias.

The underpinnings of the "Reagan Revolution" was the Laffer Curve, which postulates that at a 0% marginal tax rate, the government gets zero revenue. As the tax rate increases revenue increases, up to an optimal point, at which point as tax rates increase, government revenue decreases, due to the strain it puts on business, till you reach a tax rate of 100% and revenue is once again at zero. Charted on a graph the line is shown as a parabola. The GOP has largely forgotten about the first part of the theory and has taken a position that ALL tax cuts will increase revenue. The alternative is to point to the miracle of the Clinton years as proof that there really is something to supply side economics and under Clinton we reached that optimum level of taxation and Bush came along and screwed the whole thing up. But, unfortunately, for the past 17 years, in the stark black and white world of American Conservatism Clinton has become synonymous with pure evil and anything smacking of Clintonism has to be wrong.

Pragmatic,

You need to seriously give it up. This is a long response so here's the summary first:

SUMMARY: Republican backers are getting richer while making your Democratic supportors work longer hours for less money while dying quicker once they retire (compared to other countries) and at the same time have captured the highest court in the land to give them favorable rulings for the next 20 or 30 years and also maintaining a stranglehold on control of the largest states in the country AND keeping voters in their pockets by appealing to rank jingoism and their basest impulses (fear of "others"). Not bad for a party composed of "stupid" people.

DETAIL:
Specifically, the last time I checked:

1) the Supreme court is packed with a relatively young 5 person majority made up of stealth Federalist lawyers bent on doing a fundamental re-writing of decades of law in their favor. The latest fruit of their efforts was the United campaign finance case. Expect this to go on for the next 20 years at least.

2) three of the largest 4 states have Republican governors and over the past 10 years have dominated those states with over 30 out of the possible 40 years. The latest fruit to bear in the largest state is massive funding cuts, layoffs and IOUs to gov workers. And a veto of the statewide public option health care bill.

3) there is no single payer public option health care law. Future stuff doesn't count when you're doing an assessment.

4) state sponsored and approved torture. Obama says he won't torture but the *law* as argued in court allows him to do so. Read Greenwald on this specific point if you must. So the next time Repubs win the Presidency...torture!

5) government wiretapping (spying) on its citizens. Keeps up the fear factor.

6) the continuing widening of the rich-poor gap. Wages for average folks have stagnated over the past 30 years while the wages of the top 1% have skyrocketed.

7) average life span in America is still less than 80 years. At least 15 countries including Japan, Australia, Canada, France and Italy have life expectancies above 80.

8) average worker in America works 400 hours more per year than average German (for example). Did I mention they live longer and take more vacations? Search "working time" in Wikipedia.

I could go on but this repsonse is already way too long.

Jennifer's got it right. I said the same to my mom, a Bush supporter: I'm smarter than he is, and I'm not qualified to be president, so why is he?

And Bush is the one who went with "his gut" not his brain. Most current Rs are following his lead.

Courtesy of the Balloon Juice:

“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” - John Stuart Mill.

majun - I think you would enjoy this piece by Jonathan Chait. It's long, but well worth the entire read. All about the lunacy underpinning this unshakable faith in the Laffer Curve.

Observer ... huh? I thought we were talking about the past 13 months. If you want to go through the entire history of the country, there's no question that the GOP has passed some pretty remarkable legislation.

But really, advocating torture as an achievement?

Illegal wiretapping is a good thing?

Making the rich richer and the poor poorer, you like that one?

I can see why you stopped, Observer, your so-called achievements of the GOP look mostly like failures - even evil failures - to me.

And I'm the one that's supposed to "seriously give it up"?

Pragmatic, please don't be an ass.

This isn't "history". It's TODAY. It's the CURRENT scoreboard. There is nothing historical about any of these points.

Their entire agenda is that a few people will get on the backs and destroyed lives of regular average americans.

And while you claim to be smart they just work on their agenda and the current assessment is way in their favor.

Perhaps if you guys didn't spend so much time patting yourselves on your backs you'd notice.

s/b "Their entire agenda is that a few people will RICH get on the backs and destroyed lives of regular average americans."

Ian,

We are on the same page. I'm mostly an abstract, or "conceptual" thinker myself in that I am always trying to connect dots to see larger patterns. What I was aiming at was another way of saying that the modern GOP, dominated by right wing dogma, has become "ideological." We use that word so much as a short hand to explain the rigidity of the GOP that I think all the meaning has been drained out of what we really mean when we call someone an ideologue.

Principles are fine. They help sort and organize information and point us in particular directions. I am not sure it is possible to think clearly at all without them. But we have to understand their limitations, which I'm not sure today's Republicans do when they keep running back to them.

Today's Republicans tend to use principles as a substitute for thinking. Listening to speakers at the CPAC conference was a dismal and dispiriting experience. I could only do it for short stretches of time. No one seemed engaged with genuine ideas and all seemed to be receiting from the same monotonous script -- "Obama must be defeated because he is cramming his far left socialist agenda...tax increases...big government...lawyering up...teleprompter...blah, blah, blah."

It's inconcievable that Republicans today would be able to repeat what Reagan did in 1984 and raise taxes in order to adjust to changing circumstances and avoid deficits. With their no tax pledges they've boxed themselves out of raising revenues, and with their war hawk nationalism they can't save money by cutting defense spending, so short of taking on Social Security and Medicare in a Battle of the Somme like frontal assault across political No Man's land it's hard to see how they accomplish their states goal of lowering deficits, or even govern. Short answer is: They don't. Which is why deficits always explode on Republican's watch.

As for the mental acuity of the current crop of Republican lawmakers, I'll agree it's not one that we would call "bumper." We know that the gravitational pull of the GOP for a generation has been to the ideological far right, so it's hard to know whether today's Republicans are secretly a lot more savvy and pragmatic than we give them credit for, or whether it's really true that the Republican base won't allow itself to be led by anyone whose political imagination extends beyond inventing snappier ways to say the same old stale right wing talking points.

Maybe I missed your point Observer. Clearly you missed mine.

Are you saying the GOP is good because your list of accomplishments looks pretty terrible to me.

"Perhaps if you guys didn't spend so much time patting yourselves on your backs you'd notice."

Who is "you guys" because you're the one listing the wonderful accomplishments of the thieving, lying GOP?

You can't refute a revealed theology. Movement conservatism is a revealed theology. The greater the faith, the greater the merit. And the greatest merit comes from the greatest faith, which is demonstrated by believing things that are manifestly not so.

If he were alive today, Tertullian (the credo quia absurdum guy) could give Michael Steele a run for his money as head of the RNC.

It is not stupidity, many Republicans and Conservatives I know well are intelligent, educated, witty, etc. ... . I will get back to them in a minute. But first, the hoi polloi.

The hoi polloi are honest "conservatives" - committed to minimizing change, disruption, and anything that takes their eye off the ball. Hoi polloi reality requires this, without education, and with limited possibilities for social and economic advancement, successfully living in the reality you know and understand is paramount. This has been the progessing reality for most of the nation, outside of the few union strongholds in the Northeast, for the past 50 years. Having come from that world the fears are real, people have been living paycheck to paycheck for generations now - not just the last 2 years. My direct experience allows me to say that most hoi polloi are, at core, liberal or libertarian in their social thinking. (In a mining town of 2600 in the reddest state and county in the nation, I can remember inviting the transient dressed in hefty bags in for lunch, getting him some clothes, and getting him a job - the only black in 2 counties; or, helping the failed hippies start a nature food store - even though they were lesbians. Community, not individual efforts. In the 80's.) For most of these folks the only way out is to become a small business owner, and thus, a business and commercial conservative.

Business and commercial conservatives, not publicly-held corporate businesses, are also conservative by nature. They also represent the vast majority of the economy. The requisite planning that these conservatives do is necessarily conservative - if you are too liberal in either revenues or expenditures, you fall back into the hoi polloi almost immediately. This is not evil self-interest. Most people in this category, like the hoi polloi are, at core, liberal or libertarian in their social thinking.

So, what happens? Sarah Palin, etc. ... . Specifically, people who have made it into the business and commercial class go over a line into either craven "toolism", or naive "toolism". They become the tools of corporate "conservatism", which has nothing to do with its'namesake. (Simply look at how a corporation budgets, it has access to OPM, and as a result can be reckless and non-conservative with its'funds. Read, last 50 years of American corporate culture.) This is the real power, not money, but power in our country. They told Sarah: "Wow, you are the all-american girl, etc. ... ." Sarah believed it, after all why wouldn't she, it appealed to everything she had been taught and heard - even at her church, and in school through Title IX and self-image enhancement. "Anyone can become president, even you! We are all special in God's eyes. You are OK no matter what." The same basic technique was used for Ronald Reagan in the 50's. The only difference is that then the age of immediacy was not as strong. You had to become someone, even if it was cursory, you had to "show your work". Like all corporate advertising it has become more fluff over time. Compare Reagan's years, weekly hours, and national tours for GE before becoming even governor, to Sarah's quick speech at the Oil Palace, after she resigned. The bar has been lowered.

After you get a Sarah, especially a Sarah - Reagan was not as insulated, the corporate types use them to tie whatever is necessary as a threat to the economic security of the hoi polloi. Gays - threat; Meme - "They could rape me or my kid - have you known somebody that's been raped, my wife was raped (more hoi polloi have been raped than other groups - they are bigger) and it ruined her life. How would we ever make it through that?" This is not stupid thinking. It is based in reality.

You can make more examples yourself. But, it points to the last group in the system the consiglieres, Schmidt, Rove, Cheney, Perle, Dobson, etc. ... . These are the dark ivory tower folks. People with hardcore, excellent education, that package the ideas the corporate spokespeople give to the Hoi Polloi. And, guess what, most of them were hoi polloi to begin with. We paid for most of their educations and expertise.

I also believe the same system works on our side. The corporate bosses are different corporations, and we still need to "show our work".

Will it ever change, probably not. But, for hell's sake conservative people are not stupid. They are thinking, and they are tools. Just like everyone of us.

"You guys" means the blue team and includes bloggers and other supporters.

Any reasonable assessment of today would show that the red team is in complete control of the "game" even though in this particular inning the blue team has gotten a couple of men on base and scored a couple of runs. The score is still like 28 - 3 and, oh by the way, the red team just bought off the umpires. And they've won the last 27 of 30 games played.

I'm not on the blue team. I'm not on the red team. I would cheer for the blue team but the blue team likes to stand around and congratulate themselves on how much smarter they are than the red team even though the scoreboard shows their clocks are being cleaned.

I'm just pointing out the score. Don't shoot the messenger.

It would be better if the blue team would just wake up and play the game better.

But the blue team is vain. I hear that's a deadly sin.

I think that the GOP are, in fact, terrible politicians. They snuck into the WH through improbable luck. 9/11 came and they sought short term political advantage out of tragedy. It bought them the elections in 2002 and 2004 and 2004, just barely. Everything they did for short term advantage has had a long term negative impact on the country; unnecessary wars are popular in the beginning, but never at the end. Tax cuts are popular to enact, but deficits and recessions are unpopular in the long run. In 2006 and 2008, they had their butts handed to them. Yes, they won an election in Massachusetts which has made short term obstructionism irresistably attractive to them, but, in the long run, they have been exposed as unprincipled opportunists who are not interested in governing. Look at their approval numbers.
Yes, they have an incredible propaganda machine and an unbreakable hold on the loyalties of 30% of the voters, but that is what they have had since 2006.
Pass the Damn Bill and they go into the toilet.

How much money would we save if all current benefits for congress were reduced to the average benefits an American currently gets? Why should Congress be so entitled?

henryedward,

Very interesting piece. I think you've helped answer Thomas Frank's question: "What's The Matter With Kansas?" It's fear. Living on the edge. Wondering what's going to knock you down after you've managed to claw your way a few rungs up the ladder.

I think the portrait you paint helps to explain why religious fundamentalism is so strong in precisely those places where social pathologies are the greatest and "sinful living" the highest.

We tend to be more liberal in blue states because we can afford to be. We are richer and better educated and so not quite so close to life's margins. It does get a little tiresome being called moral relativists or "godless secular progressives" by people who divorce more often, beat their wives and kids with greater abandon, get drunk and shoot their neighbors more often, and in general make a complete hash of their lives.

But, hey, when people's lives are in disorder they tend to cling to the biggest tree around, and that usually means some fundamentalist religion that sees the world as a spectrum of blacks and whites.

What you describe may also explain something else I've thought about. Frank couldn't figure out why the people most hurt by conservative economics were also the ones who seemed to embrace it's laissez faire principles the most. I've often thought that it could be that the very economic insecurity created by super-capitalism's use of high finance to loot and cannibalize even healthy companies for their hidden profits, thus ruining communities, may in its own perverse way create the very conservatism that supports it through the fear of change that capitalism engenders with its "creative destruction" of other people's lives.

Very interesting read, thanks for sending it.

So what it seems you're saying Observer is that the blue team thinks it's smarter and has better ideas than the red team and the blue team is arrogant but you're smarter than any of us and have all the answers so you're above having to join a team.

Our political discourse is caught in a vicious codependency. Irony is determinative. The progressive side is ironic, the conservative side is sincere.

CPAC speakers are so irony deficient that they recite Obama teleprompter jokes off of teleprompters.

When a conservative commentator says something stupid, the usual liberal reaction is snark. In reaction, conservatives double down on the illogic, knowing that it upsets liberals. Thus the cycle is perpetuated.

Another point:

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to
Adlai E Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!'
Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!'

Observer: making your Democratic supportors(sic) work longer hours for less money while dying quicker
Goldman Sachs, you lose.

All:

A distinction: I'd agree that Republican politicians today are breathtakingly stupid ABOUT POLICY (or perhaps just so enthralled by an ideology that it blinds them to any reasoned analysis). I'm not so sure they're stupid about POLITICS -- about manipulating appearance and grabbing power.

Indeed, isn't that the tragedy today? One party is capable of governing; the other one is better at getting itself into a position to power.

If you think of Rupert Murdoch as the 21st Century P.T. Barnum you might find the "reason" for much of what's being discussed here.

Pragmatic, I think you're missing Observer's point. Conservatives CONTROL the country. They are smart enough to know how to get power and how to use it. Of course, this power only benefits a small minority (a minority of CONSERVATIVES, that is, so it's a tiny, tiny minority of all Americans), so properly speaking, that minority is very smart, and the other conservatives working for them are dupes.

There is literally nothing to debate here.

Steve gets it, in his penultimate graf:

"There's a strong strain of anti-intellectualism in American life..."

The politicians whom he describes are pandering. Once you have said that, there is nothing left to say. Now STOP looking at the storytellers and start looking at the audience. Thank you.

I get it Daryl and I am loathe to be forced to agree with that sad point. My point, however, is that Observer's smug criticism of both sides while claiming that his intellect allows him to remain above the fray is disingenuous at best.

I hope that I am not the only one who feels a little icky about citing to Henry Paulson -- the man who bears much (if not the lion's share) of the blame for our current economic troubles -- as an expert on GOP congresscritter ignorance. Isn't this a little bit like Tony Soprano calling Paulie Walnuts a moron?!?

Forget smart & dumb, and I agree that most of the republicans (especially in the south) are as dumb as two planks of wood.
The republicans get elected because they do the bidding of their corporate masters, never mind the peoples needs. Corporations spend a mint of money on those lying campaign ads & line the pocket of anyone. We have a government 75% bought and paid for. As when John Kerry ran for president, he was swift boated and slimed with money provided by rich republican masters. Most Viet Nam veterans know Kerry was a true hero, McCain - not so much.

The Republicans are ideologues who represent the interests of major corporations and the very wealthiest Americans. Period. Their entire domestic agenda is tax cuts and deregulation. And unlike saner Republicans of the past, who paid lip service to the nutty notions of ditching Social Security and Medicare, these new GOP buffoons would actually do it. That's what makes a halfwit like Sarah Palin so dangerous. She would destroy the social safety net and play war with our soldiers based on nothing but ideology, her personal religious beliefs, and gut instinct. For all of W's faults, he looks like John Kenneth Galbraith next to Palin.

And it's time for everyone in the media and the Democratic Party to end the fiction that the GOP has a "plan" for health care. Let's be clear. The GOP doesn't care about health care reform. Their sole interest is making sure that private insurance companies maximize their profits. That Americans with pre-existing conditions are unable to obtain coverage (or care), and that millions of other Americans are unable to afford coverage is not a problem for the GOP. The GOP's answer to those people is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." After all, America has the best health care in the world (which is irrelevant to the issue of access) and if you collapse, you can always go to the emergency room (the "forest fire" approach to health care). It's sheer idiocy, but you can blame the Democratic Party for letting the GOP get away with spewing these lies and distortions for the last year.

If the Democrats can't start getting their hands dirty and playing politics by the "prison rules" used by the GOP, they will continue to lose ground, and the GOP buffoons will be back in power. And this is not your father's GOP.

Steve,

I'll admit not having yet gone through the 72 comments ahead of this, so if MANY commenters have said the same thing, then kudos to them!

But I think the notion of 'checking their work' is an absolutely brilliant campaign strategy. The Dems should spend REAL time on making this idea part of their campaign strategy for this year. No one is going to convince the 25% rebumblicans or their tea party cohorts, but the idea of 'checking the work' would, I believe, resonate VERY strongly amongst independents.

Would have worked for me, and I was a dead-center vote for a LONG time (this is true, I swear to whatever, because I used to try to weigh the value for the country versus what personal value I thought I might receive in every vote... how true is this for too many; more importantly, how many people assess this corrcectly?).

"But I think the notion of 'checking their work' is an absolutely brilliant campaign strategy."

Absolutely. This is exactly Obama's strategy when he asked the GOP to put their health reform plan on the table this week. The predictable weaseling to evade doing that has been their response.

Ted,

Thanks for taking the time, and thought. Those 2 things will help everyone more than anything else.

It's called democracy. They represent morons. Quite well I believe.

A true conservative probably never welcomes changes, but understands that it is inevitable. Said true conservative may try to slow the rate of change, but realizes that stopping it is impossible.
By those standards, the base of the modern-day Republican party ISN'T conservative. It doesn't want to slow changes and allow more time to adjust to them; it wants to turn the clock back to a time and society that has never existed. Or at least not outside of reruns of "Leave It to Beaver" and "Gunsmoke" on Nickelodeon or "Little House on the Prairie" on Hallmark(?).
But the base votes. If playing to its' delusions gets them elected, modern-day Republican politicians will continue to feed those delusions, no matter how ridiculous they are and no matter how harmful to this country they may be.
After all, it's their job to "represent" their constituents, isn't it?

Stupid people are happy people. Want proof? Look at their pretty, unlined faces, unmarked by thoughts or sleepless nights.

As a fairly intelligent woman who went to college and reads constantly. I admit I don't understand economics well as I never took a course in college(am an RN who didn't take it)but I do know that if revenues via taxes are cut then the monies coming in decreases also.
I want the most intelligent persons available to be my representatives in Congress and in the White House. I know we have one of the most intelligent Presidents outside Clinton and Jefferson but the remainder of our government embarrasses me especially when I have explain these idiots to my friends in UK and AU.

If the Republicans are degenerating into the Party of whites lacking college educations,

No, you can include "whites who have contemporary college educations" (as in from the past 20 years or so). The quality of what you get in a college education nowadays is a bit lower than what I could get in high school 48 years ago. Most of today's college students - and over the past 15 years that I am directly aware of - are functionally illiterate and unable to string together 5 words that make sense (or are even spelled correctly). When I taught a writing class a few years back at a good state school, I asked on the first day how many students had read 10 books in the past year they were not required to read (on the theory that the best way to become a good writer is to be a pretty voracious reader, since that way you are studying "publishable writing" and the techniques therein will "rub off"). No one raised their hands. 9. None. 8. None. Down I went, and finally got three responses at 2. These were kids from the top 10 percent of their graduating class in high school and they didn't read!!!

If you want to know if the American people today are dumber than they were a generation ago, at least in terms of the kind of education that includes learning to actually think, the answer is an unqualified YES. Once you realize that, the "dumbing down" of popular culture in the past 20 years makes perfect sense.

Go take this current events test:

http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/index.php

Look at the results of your fellow Americans and weep. This is why stupidity reigns so powerful.

Jennifer: During the 2004 election, whenever I would get into a discussion with a die-hard Bushie, I would just say, "I only have one litmus test for presidential candidates: they have to be at least as smart as I am, or I'm not voting for them. I don't hire people to do jobs for me that I could do better myself, so I'm not going to vote for a guy who can't do the job at least as well as I can. Do you think Bush is smarter than you are?"

That's cute, but Bush was running against Kerry, not against me. Not by a wide margin, but Bush was smarter than Kerry.

Does anybody here believe that TARP has been a success? It has not disclosed the troubled assets or led to them being cleared in the market; instead, most are still hidden, and most financial institutions are still trying to hide their losses. Instead of boosting confidence by being cheerful, it's boosting anxiety and mistrust. That's slowing whatever recovery might take place. The TARP money that went to GM is almost certainly lost to the taxpayers. I thought that the Republicans did the right thing to oppose TARP.

Not by a wide margin, but Bush was smarter than Kerry.

The available evidence is so far against this assertion that it fails to meet even a minimal laugh test.

Of course, citing TARP, a Bush administration initiative, merely proves that you're a partisan moron, not that there was any real doubt about that.

Does anybody here believe that TARP has been a success?

TARP successfully prevented the collapse of the financial system by shoring up enormous investment and commercial lenders who would have otherwise collapsed due to a debt/liquidity crisis, creating a domino effect likely leading to a prolonged depression. So the answer to your question is yes: TARP is a success on that measure.

Is TARP perfect? No. The government should have taken controlling interests in the banks in order to force them to lend out more of the money they received to stimulate the economy and put stiff restrictions on using it to purchase other banks.

Should TARP have more transparency? Absolutely. It is being terribly abused? You betcha. Why? Because Republicans screamed "Hitler!" and "Socialism!" when even the most modest oversight of the program was suggested, much less than the strict regulation that was necessary, but aid to the banks was necessary so now we have the crappy compromise program you helped create.

Was it better than doing nothing? Yes. It basically helped stave off the destruction of the economy.

most financial institutions are still trying to hide their losses. Instead of boosting confidence by being cheerful, it's boosting anxiety and mistrust. That's slowing whatever recovery might take place.

Right, because when banks too big too fail disclose their losses and create a financial panic, that always speeds recovery.

"Being cheerful"? Seriously?

I thought that the Republicans did the right thing to oppose TARP.

The majority of Republicans voted for TARP, more than half of both House and Senate Republicans. From Media Matters:

"65 House Republicans voted in favor of H.R. 3997, the original House vehicle for the act. After that legislation failed, on October 1, 2008, 34 Senate Republicans voted for H.R. 1424, the new vehicle for the act, and on October 3, 2008, 91 House Republicans voted for that bill. President Bush, a Republican, subsequently signed it into law."

Not by a wide margin, but Bush was smarter than Kerry.

The available evidence is so far against this assertion that it fails to meet even a minimal laugh test.

You seem to be confused. Bush's grades at Yale were almost identical to Kerry's: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

Next time, I suggest you have some vague idea what you're talking about before responding.

I figured by now we would be over the Bush/Kerry comparisons, but it seems not to be the case. It helps me make a point, however. It seemed there was a presumption that Kerry was "smarter" --- but I never saw anything to back that up. In terms of being fit to be the world's most important CEO/leader, they were both woefully inadequate.

Some of the least informed, poorest academically-prepared, closed-minded and clueless people I know are Democrats. The rest of the least informed, poorest academically-prepared, closed-minded and clueless people I know are Republicans. The better informed, more highly educated, open-minded and savvy --- tend to be independents more often than not. Or apolitical, because they see the senselessness of the political process as it has come to be.

To take sides in the "who's more stupid" (as between the politicians, by party) debate is like pondering whether a 2-14 or a 3-13 NFL football team is the better one. If there IS a difference it is miniscule; both are pitiful.

And by the way, among the really smart and competent people I know, it breaks down about 1/3 each for progressive/liberal, conservative/traditional/originalist, and independent/moderate/flexible. I'm willing to bet that because of my lifestyle and career and locale (urban, both North and South), I know and interact with a wider variety of socioeconomic "publics" than 95% of people do and my friendships cut across all the categories. I know snobs and rednecks and professionals, and clerical folks, and tradespeople and factory workers, etc., in most racial and religious subsets of America.

Get over "who's smarter". The best boss I ever had wasn't as smart or well-educated as I am, but he was better at lots of things required in business, including leadership and getting things done through others. My spouse is a PhD and I have a lowly Masters, but I am much better at getting thing done. I run things, get stuff done, interact, she ponders, reflects, "feels", and analyzes. And teaches. So? Both of us would be lousy Presidents, by the way.

Politicians, almost by definition, aren't very good leaders,innovators, or risk-takers. Some are pretty smart and others are very dull-headed. As a group, I find them to generally be ineffectual.

If they were a sports team, they would fail to make the playoffs every single year if matched against most of us who have to survive and prosper in the "real world".

One more thought. So called "liberal" politicians are terrible at change management and they advocate lots of things that have adverse consequences after enactment. Which is one reason that I am very skeptical of activist government.

"Know-nothingness was no longer a stigma, but a badge of honor." Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker on the GOP today 11/7/08

Now you'll even believe Hank "Subclinical Football Concussions" Paulson, as long as he helps you feel ineffably superior to Republicans. If Hammerhead Hank had talked to any actual smart people they would have offered him the blindingly obvious option of giving bank bondholders a haircut. Upshot is, you now swear fealty to Bush's TARP looting spree to burnish your credentials as partisan dupes. Fucking forlorn.

TCinLA,

I took the Pew Survey and saw the results breakdown from all participants. Most participants on this blog would get 100%, that's a given. But there wasn't one question (and they were REALLY basic) that garnered more than 60%.
6% couldn't provide ANY correct answer. Wow.

Regrettably, I also have to add that Republicans on average were able to provide more correct answers than Democrats. This points to a real need for the party to do a better job educating its own members. I'm afraid a lot of people registered with a "D" because their parents did and haven't taken it much beyond that.

Hey tools,

Just because Hank Paulson makes an accurate observation doesn't mean we agree with everything he's ever said or done.

If you drove the same way you argue, you'de be dead. All or nothing. Black or white.

Fucking forlorn, indeed.

Look at 12:07, TARP helped stave off the destruction of the economy blah blah blah, some sort of incoherent sarcasm that hints banks should not disclose their losses... Now I'll cop to singling out the most innumerate guy here. But your authority for this post is the architect of a 3/4 trillion program for a problem that could have been resolved at zero public cost by swapping bank debt for equity. How the fuck does he know what stupid is? And if he fooled any of you, Who are calling dumb?

Someone may be "smart" in that they can have an intelligent conversation, live a successful, indeed propsperous and well ordered life, and know a lot of stuff and still be ignorant when it comes to politics.

I know a lot of "smart" die hard conservative Republicans who are just plain wrong, in fact laughably wrong about the real world consequences of policy and completely unknowledgable about the facts that should inform policy decisions. These are successful, pleasant people on the whole, but the minute they start talking about public policy or politics they become moronic, spouting talking points as articles of truth, justice and the American way. Smart people often believe very bizarre, stupid things. And of course what I call the mushy middle usually just go with whoever seems the loudest. So, to use the convenient example of health care reform, why is it that very intelligent people seem to believe that "Obamacare" is "socialism" but Medicare, particularly their Medicare, is just dandy. Or that a national insurance exchange which provides access to PRIVATE insurance along with a government run insurance plan is a "government takeover" of health care and will result in grannycide? Why do smart people, who are educated, prosperous and DON'T watch reality TV start every argument about health care, "Why should I pay for YOUR health care?" Why would a lawyer who does estate planning documents and understand full well what living wills are about repeat the canard about "death panels."

For people like this, politics are more like a religion. They can take their political viewpoints as an article of faith. They can say things like John Kerry was a war coward and dumb, but George Bush is a hero and smart because their political party does not require them to exert intellectual rigor on their political world view. Me, I don't know how smart George Bush is, in the end. I don't even care. Clearly the country did not thrive under his direction. That's the bottom line. And any conservative who argues otherwise I know to be either deluded, willfully ignorant, uncaring or cynical.
Unfortunately almost all people are first and foremost dedicated to being right, and when they are wrong, they double down on it. I think that's what we are seeing in movement conservativism. They know deep in their hearts they are wrong, because the evidence shows it. Human beings HATE being wrong, so much so that they will project all that wrongness onto everyone else. When viewed dispassionately, that kind of irrational response sure looks dumb.

But your authority for this post is the architect of a 3/4 trillion program for a problem that could have been resolved at zero public cost by swapping bank debt for equity.

Yep. And if we all just used our free-energy hovercraft instead of cars we could end our dependence on foreign oil.

I think you're right, essentially nationalizing banks was the best practical solution to this problem. I advocated that position in the past and I hinted at it in my comment. I wish Obama had done it. But he didn't have the cojones, and if you don't have them and a strong Democratic Congress to back you and you're facing a country full of rubes ready to fly their little planes into buildings because they believe Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler by taking over the banks then as a political solution it is unworkable.

TARP sucks but it was a solution that prevented a complete financial meltdown at the time. You walked in a long-running conversation that you lacked context for and started shooting from the hip. I think Obama should have taken over the banks and given the bond holders a haircut. I probably say this every fucking week to people, mainly in response to my oblivious right-wing friends who complain that Obama hasn't "done enough" when at the same time they complain that he's "taking over everything."

I also think as practical solutions to many of this country's problems we should have universal health care, third parties, runoffs in national elections, legalized drugs, and a bunch of other things, but I don't expect to get them anytime soon.

Doesn't take nationalization. Prompt corrective action per statute, that's all it takes, and a little ballsy improvisation at a time when people are panicked enough to swallow trillion-dollar shotgun malinvestment. All Obama had to do, the feckless poltroon, was stay the fuck out of the way. But no. Doing the obvious thing is impossible only because Obama was chosen as the banker's bumboy. Goldman interviews you 20 or 30 times so they know their factotums. But now he could snap the leash if he only knew it. He got dictafuckingtorial powers from Bush. He could liquidate the bankers in a heartbeat, make them disappear. Or he could be a one-term lawn jockey. Whatever he thinks. I don't give a shit.

You seem to be confused. Bush's grades at Yale were almost identical to Kerry's

ROFL.... So your measure of how smart someone is consists entirely of their *college grades*??? Personally, I look at what they actually accomplish, what they say, the kinds of questions they ask, the kinds of questions they can answer, and so on.

Next time, I suggest you have some vague idea what you're talking about before responding.

ROFL... Oh, the irony....