DISCLAIMER: I do not attempt to be polite or partisan in my articles, merely truthful. If you are a partisan and believe that the letter after the name of a politician is more important then their policies, I suggest that you stop reading and leave this site immediately--there is nothing here for you.

Modern American politics are corrupt, hyper-partisan, and gridlocked, yet the mainstream media has failed to cover this as anything but politics as usual. This blog allows me to post my views, analysis and criticisms which are too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets.

I am your host, Josh Sager--a progressive activist, political writer and occupier--and I welcome you to SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Weekly Issue #3 - 8/13/2011 - The Iowa Republican Debate

A singularity is an astrophysical definition for an area of space where gravity and space have collapsed in upon themselves to create a point of infinite gravity and density (essentially a black hole). The Republican debate was a singularity of ignorance and falsehood, where all of the Republican talking points have coalesced into an area where the facts of an issue simply no longer matter.

While this debate has little to no actual effect on the USA's policy, I believe that it is very important to analyze the views expressed by the candidates because one of them may just run the country. I can come to only one conclusion when watching this debate: These people are either ignorant, deluded, or intentionally misleading on EVERY issue relevant to the running of this country. The sheer magnitude of false comments and logical fallacies espoused by the candidates leads me to worry about any of them running against Obama; to be fair, Huntsman was much more reasonable and sane than the others but, as pointed out by the moderator, he is almost running in the wrong party. If any of these candidates are elected, the results on policy in the government will be catastrophic, because ignorance about the effects of a policy in no way mitigates the possible harm that can be caused by their decisions.

Rachel Maddow show: "Debunction Junction". WATCH THIS, it is amusing yet entirely accurate.

Huffington Post

As with the last debate there was a very clear hierarchy in the candidates. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann were both the very clear winners of this debate with all of the other candidates trailing behind by a wide margin. As I have previously written, I believe that there are only three potential candidates for the Republican nomination to president of the United States of 2012: Romney Bachmann and Perry. All of the other candidates really have no chance of actually getting the nomination but are participating either for financial or future political gain Gingrich and Paul have both previously run for the Republican nomination for president and I believe are not actually expecting to get the nomination, but have other goals in mind. Gingrich is simply attempting to remain a legitimate political entity so that he can capitalize on his position financially. I believe Ron Paul means well and while not expecting to get the nomination, is trying to advocate for his libertarian philosophy in the public spotlight. Candidates Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain, and Huntsman simply do not have the support numbers to believe that they should be able to get the nomination; all of them are below 10% in Republican polls and I believe our running simply to advance their political careers.

One interesting development in this debate that has nothing to do with policy is that there seem to be cracks in Republican solidarity. In the first debate all of the candidates played nicely and simply attacked Obama rather than each other. In this debate there were marked signs of strain between several of the candidates, most overtly Pawlenty, Bachmann and Romney. Pawlenty spend a significant portion of his debate time attacking Bachmann in what I believe is an attempt to wrest some of the right wing extremist vote away from her in time to survive the Iowa straw poll. The Republican candidates still most often attacked Obama, but the increase in attacks between each other is a good sign for the Democrats. Republican campaigns tend to be significantly more dirty and negative than Democratic campaigns, thus the eventual winner could potentially be weakened by the other Republicans to the point where they cannot compete with Obama. Ultimately, I see the potential political consequences of what is said in the debate less important than the potential policy consequences if one of those candidates is elected.

As demonstrated by the sheer number of falsehoods espoused in this debate, as well as the minimal challenge to said falsehoods by the Republican moderator, ignorance and delusion have become so commonplace in right wing policy that even the most egregious lack of knowledge is accepted. Good policy and governance cannot be based upon incorrect facts and logical fallacies. When the people who are expected to run this country well cannot determine even basic causal relationships, there is little hope that the country will run efficiently and provide all of the services promised to the population. The single most pervasive logical fallacy of this debate as well as much of the Republican platform is that of tax policy and the effects of altering tax rates.

I truly wonder who the first person to say "every time we lower taxes revenues go up" was, and whether they were a right wing propagandists, or simply ignorant of even the most basic economic theory. While it is true that lowering some taxes at sometimes is capable of stimulating the economy, starving the federal government to the point where it cannot function is simply not in the best interest of the country. As demonstrated in recent years, the money that is given back to the wealthy and corporations is invested somewhere else, such as China or India. The globalization of the United States economy has led to a situation where tax breaks for corporations and “job creators" have little to no feedback or multiplication effects. Of all the Republican candidates in the last debate, only John Huntsman believes that increasing taxes on those who can afford it and instituting stimulus rather than austerity is the way out of our current recession. The failure of trickle down economics is an empirically verifiable fact yet, like global warming, is completely disregarded by half of the political field, which leads to adverse policy decisions.

Simply put, if any candidate who believes in trickle down economic theory is elected, I predict a collapse of the social safety net, increase in income inequality, and decrease in jobs. Everybody who heard the debate last night should keep in mind that these candidates' views are the exact same ones instituted by George Bush when he managed to turn a booming economy and a surplus into record high deficits and a recession.

The Sarcastic Liberal

No comments:

Post a Comment