[Winstonm]

It is difficult for me to articulate succinctly what I see as the major problem with the American right wing and its political thinking. I stumbled across the following article which for me lays bear the essence of their cognitive biases. From Salon.com by way of Huffington Post:

Quote

Not long ago, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor tweeted, “President Obama wants to raise your taxes so he can pay people $1.2 million to play World of Warcraft.”

Seizing on a hot political attack, House Speaker John Boehner followed suit: “Pres Obama wants more tax hikes, refuses to #cutwaste like $1.2M spent paying people to play video games.” Other House Republicans hopped on the bandwagon, too, with similar tweets attacking science and video games like “World of Warcraft” (also known as WoW).

In assailing people “playing video games,” the lawmakers were referring to a team of Ph.D. researchers and doctoral students who earned two National Science Foundation grants totaling $1.2 million for scientific study of the cognitive benefits of certain games to older people. Their statements were factually wrong, harmful to a proud American brand and exerted a chilling effect on legitimate and essential scientific research.

The facts lay out a different version of reality than the ones tweeted by politicians

In the article, Daniel Greenberg points out the facts that are conveniently ignored by the Right in order to make their politicized claims.

If the Republican Party continues to allow itself to be run by its extreme members, I can easily see a day in the not-to-distant future when the Republican brand will be considered as asinine as Scientology.

[JLOGIC]

"Rewriting facts to fit a bias" -- Isn't this what all politicians from all parties in every avenue of life do? They spin things and try to create a negative buzz about their opponent so they are more likely to hold power.

For instance, you are implying that the Republicans are doing this while the Democrats aren't. This is a spin to try and put a negative light on the party that opposes yours.

[wyman]

The beauty of our political system is that these people only have as much power as we give them.

It struck me when Will McAvoy (a fictional character with whom Winston may be acquainted) spoke of "the simple truth that nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate." Indeed.

[kenberg]

The author of the article is a video game developer who is very upset about criticism of video games. I dunno, but perhaps I would be a little cautious here.
"the debunked myth that imaginary violence causes real violence" he says.Causes? No, I don't imagine so, if cause is of the if A then B sort of tight schedule of events. . But he argues that video games can influence cognitive abilities in older adults. Is it a stretch to believe that playing violent video games for, say, two hours a day might influence the psychological development of children? How does it happen that modest use of video games can influence the brain of an older adult but prolonged usage will not affect children? Seems as if one of those statements is apt to be wrong. Maybe both of them are wrong.

Anyway, the author clearly has an axe to grind. From watching video games, probably.

[y66]

Richard Lugar took a shot at articulating his thoughts on this problem after losing his primary race to Richard Mourdock in May 2012:

Quote

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don't succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Bill Clinton was somewhat more succinct:

Quote

What is this idea that it's my way or the highway? I was raised to believe that nobody's right all the time. Now, maybe Mr. Mourdock is, I don't know. He's way right all the time, I know that.

No doubt Will McAvoy and many others were happy to see Mourdock lose in November to Democratic moderate, Joe Donnelly, who fashioned himself as a "common-sense Hoosier in the tradition of Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh." I'm pretty sure even Boehner and Cantor learned something from this.

[Cyberyeti]

JLOGIC, on 2013-March-09, 17:42, said:

"Rewriting facts to fit a bias" -- Isn't this what all politicians from all parties in every avenue of life do? They spin things and try to create a negative buzz about their opponent so they are more likely to hold power.

For instance, you are implying that the Republicans are doing this while the Democrats aren't. This is a spin to try and put a negative light on the party that opposes yours.

From across the pond it appears that the Republicans have stooped much lower in rewriting the facts to a much absurder degree, but yes very few politicians don't do this.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-11, 10:48, said:

From across the pond it appears that the Republicans have stooped much lower in rewriting the facts to a much absurder degree, but yes very few politicians don't do this.

The problem seems to be that the Republicans are much better at it. In post mortems of Democratic defeats, a common complaint is that the Democratic candidate didn't fight fire with fire, which allowed this tactic to succeed.

I like to view it as the Democrats being more idealistic. When the truth is on your side, you shouldn't have to resort to this strategy. The right is better at it because they need to be.

[Winstonm]

There was an article today in the Huffington Post about Paul Ryan creating a budget that has ZERO chance of passing the Senate - meaning it was simply a monumental waste of everyone's time - and he leads the budget committee. As Ryan ackcnowledges, his entire budget hinges on repeal of the Affordable Health Care Ace - right-wing-colloquialism "Obamacare" - which means that he is more interested in supporting a fantasy representation of reality than actually dealing realistically with the wants and needs of the nation.

This is not the leadership that anyone other than a handful of unrealistic Pollyannas should want in Washington.

[blackshoe]

Since when is being "more idealistic" equivalent to having the "truth" (whatever that is) on your side?

Oh, and of course, all the greedy, uncaring, sociopathic idiots are on the right, there are none on the left.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-12, 09:11, said:

Since when is being "more idealistic" equivalent to having the "truth" (whatever that is) on your side?

When I agree with them

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-12, 09:11, said:

Since when is being "more idealistic" equivalent to having the "truth" (whatever that is) on your side?

Oh, and of course, all the greedy, uncaring, sociopathic idiots are on the right, there are none on the left.

You jump to a conclusion I did not make. Unreality in this situation specifically refers to the fact that the Senate is Democratically controlled, as is the Presidency, and the chances of passage of a this budget is zero. I never said that wanting to or working toward a repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act was wrongheaded.

Myself, I would welcome a repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act is it were replaced by single payer, but I doubt you agree with that.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2013-March-12, 09:18, said:

When I agree with them

Regardless of "beliefs", reality is its own master. Agreed?

[y66]

Guest post from Mark Warner, Democratic Senator from Virginia and basically all around good guy:

Quote

Here are three reasons why I am more hopeful than ever that we may be ready to take meaningful steps to address our fiscal challenges:

Last week, the House approved a spending bill for the remainder of the budget year that gives the Pentagon added flexibility to make smarter management decisions to avoid the worst effects of sequestration. The Senate is scheduled to consider the bill this week, and there is bipartisan progress on efforts to broaden and improve it to blunt the impact of the across-the-board sequestration cuts. There is a stupid way to cut budgets and a less stupid way, and I believe providing this flexibility is a less stupid approach. I am hopeful Congress will enact this smarter, bipartisan approach. It will remove the economic storm cloud that is hanging over Virginia's military families, shipyard workers, our federal workforce and government contractors.

In addition, the Senate's Budget Committee will complete work on a budget this week that represents a return to a more traditional budgeting process. There will be some gamesmanship and “gotcha” moments, but it is important that we get back to a responsible process of producing a budget. While I won’t agree with everything in the Committee budget, it is an important step forward as we continue the discussion over getting our fiscal house in order.

Finally, you may have heard about recent conversations between the White House and lawmakers from both parties -- conversations that are exploring opportunities to strike a "grand bargain" to address our deficits and debt in a more comprehensive way.

As most of you know, this is the issue I have spent most of my time here in the Senate working on. Since organizing the Senate's Gang of Six in 2011, some would say I've been obsessed with finding common ground on a meaningful plan that will rationally cut spending, simplify and modernize the tax code, and strengthen our health and entitlement programs so they'll be around for our kids. As these bipartisan discussions move forward I will, as always, continue to fight for a balanced and comprehensive solution.

I'll keep you updated on our progress, and please continue to contact my office to share your thoughts and concerns.

[y66]

Speaking of all around good guys from Virginia, here's a fascinating story from 2008 about the problem alluded to by the OP. The author, Peter Baker, is also an all around good guy from Virginia and the son of a local bridge player.

Quote

The revolution is over, the thrill is gone and the Republican brand under President Bush has, in Davis’s view, been so tarnished that, as he likes to say, “if we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf.” These will be Davis’s last few weeks in Congress. He decided against re-election, disaffected by the partisanship, by a process he calls broken, by a party he considers hijacked by social conservatives. “We’re just not getting much done,” he said

Quote

Davis, of course, was never above politics. He made a national name for himself beating Democrats when he was chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002, picking candidates, raising money, setting strategy and traveling the country. “That was the job I was made for,” he told me wistfully. His detailed knowledge of districts paid off. He held the Republican majority in 2000 and 2002 but clashed over strategy with fellow House Republican leaders and with Karl Rove, Bush’s political guru. “He looks through the cultural prism of divide and conquer,” Davis said. “I look at it like, ‘Look, the world is changing and we need to appeal to these people.’ We had a different view of how the coalitions should evolve.”

[Winstonm]

From the Huffington Post:

Quote

It didn’t take long for the empty truth about the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act to be exposed Wednesday, and there was little equality opponents could do. At the Supreme Court hearing, Elena Kagan, the newest justice, went to the House Report from Congress when it passed the law in 1996, and summarized DOMA’s entire legal underpinning: “Congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” According to people in the room, there were gasps and laughter at the so-called “gotcha moment.”

DOMA is bigotry in action, regardless of how the GOP wingnuts try to spin it.

[barmar]

Last night's Daily Show showed a great moment when the government's advocate reacted "Did they really say that?"

Everything is in the record these days, often on HD video. It's always fun to watch bigwigs hoist on their own petard when past statements are resurrected. TDS used to do a series of "Bush vs. Bush" bits, where they constructed debates between G.W. Bush the candidate and G.W. Bush the President, using clips from debates, rallies, and press conferences.