What used to be called conflict of interest is now called synergy — Jack Grubman
In response to my post on framing below, reader Sara pointed me to Eliot Spitzer’s speech at the National Press Club yesterday for a great example of re-framing the Democratic argument, and it is a really good one.
I urge you to listen to the whole thing because Spitzer is such a great example of the “fighting liberal” we need more of. He points out that the rules of integrity that we all agree and understand must be enforced to keep the system running efficiently can only be done by government. Business cannot be relied upon to self-regulate because those who reject the practices of their competitors is almost always at a disadvantage. It’s a race to the bottom in which each enterprise excuses its behavior by saying it is not quite as bad as the other guy.
(I was struck at how this frames the issue of “the market” in terms that recognize Democrats as the “enforcers of the rules” while casting the Republican business elite as the out of control party boys who can’t be relied upon to police their own behavior. As I was listening I had a picture of a kid saying that they’d love to join in the binge drinking and drag racing fun, but their father is a tough cop and they’d better not. Strict father gives the kids a way to avoid peer pressure.)
He also discusses how much the laissez faire philosophy of deregulation and protections for cronies and contributors has led to loss of shareholder value and misallocation of capital to losing enterprises due to their dishonesty and lack of transparency. It’s bad for the economy and the current administration is exacerbating it by protecting the status quo to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
As an example, after the disclosure that the makers of Paxil had withheld from the public information that clearly showed that there was a high risk of suicide in teen-agers who used the drug, he quotes the WSJ editorial page as saying “the system is working exactly as it should.”
He discusses “values” in the context that only government can “enforce” business behavior that recognises our cultural values such as anti-discrimination or minimum wage. He says, “the marketplace alone can’t get us there.” “Democrats believe in the market and we understand the market, but it will not survive if we do not understand it’s flaws and government does not enforce the rules of integrity.”
With regard to the social security debate, he said that the Democrats are the ones who built the middle class, protected their investments and created the ownership society that already is America. The Republicans, contrary to the popular view, are “cloaking themselves in the language of the market, but speaking for the ossified status quo.”
This is an elegant way of framing our position. Democrats are the reformers — by being the enforcers. In this political climate those are powerful words. Fighting liberal reformers battling to enforce the rules that maximise the efficiency of the market and promote our values.
If you read one thing today, read this article by Robert Wright(if you haven’t already.)
There was a time, lo these many years ago (back in the 90’s) when most people understood that globalization was a huge transition with lots of unintended consequences we need to be aware of and deal with, but it was inevitable and also held out a huge promise of progress for freedom, liberty and deomcracy and all that gooey good stuff our Preznit loves to talk about. The thinking went that capitalism held the keys to liberation and that while we were embarking on a somewhat unknown track, we had faith that our economic and political systems would win out as long as we were engaged.
Then along came 9/11 and “changed everything.” The PNAC neocon crowd, who had always dissented from that argument, held sway with their belief that the US had to expand its influence through the use of hard power and force the gooey good stuff because otherwise it wouldn’t happen.
They did not understand that it’s our “idea” that is the compelling thing, not our awesome military and economic might, which exists not to spread freedom but to protect it. They have faith in their own ideology and their own power, but they have no faith in what this country stands for. Their reliance on things like torture bears that out. That is the fundamental error.
Along with Mark Schmitt, I’m not a big fan of Lakoff’s new book. As I’ve written many times, I think his analysis of the art and science of framing is right on the money, but I think his actual frames are just terrible. He’s an idea man, not a political strategist. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. The mere fact that he frames the Democrats as “nurturant parents (mommies)” disqualifies him from political action. That frame is exactly what’s killing us. It may be sexism or it may just be the times in which we live, but we should drop it like a hot potato.
The Republicans have an economic framing model that’s very successful and we can learn from it. They sell an optimistic, simple philosophy of “if only the government would get out of the way you can be successful.” This means that if you aren’t successful it’s the government’s fault. (And Democrats believe in government so they are actively working to keep you down.) Their frame is always, entirely, the frame of self reliance and self interest. They preach it as a moral good no matter what the situation. This is a notion that has a very long history in American culture and it’s one that appeals to a very basic aspect of human nature. It has become the dominant strain in political discourse over the last thirty years.
However, they know that Americans are not that simple minded about their own personal self interest. Even if they sign on to the philosophy of self interest it doesn’t mean that they don’t understand that they have much to gain with a generous redistributional government. (Hence the “lucky ducky” strategy.) Americans like certain things the government provides. So, the Republicans hire guys like Frank Luntz and spend millions of dollars polling and focus grouping to find out how to market this “you’re on your own” philosophy to make it sound as if they will be guaranteed a better result if they do it the GOP way. They choose words and phrases that denigrate government, make Democrats appear to be corrupt and enslaved by “special” interests and make it sound as if people will be giving nothing up and gaining much by signing on to the Republican philosophy.
But, even with all that they have not been able to completely destroy the liberal consensus. Therefore, they are forced to do things like sell social security destruction on two tracks. They are simultaneously trying to “save” something that poeple obviously value while at the same time convincing people that they will benefit far more if they sign on to the privatization bandwagon. But we have recently found out that after all this time they can’t use the word “privatization” because people aren’t buying it. People know enough to know “privatization” means they might lose money.
This is very telling It says that while the Republicans have been able to move self interest to the front and center of political discourse, displacing the values of community and altruism as things people feel they ought to say when quizzed about such things. But they haven’t managed to make people believe that government is their personal enemy or that it is in their self interest to reject all redistribution of wealth so that they might have more “opportunity.” Self-interested people aren’t ideologues. They’ll take the best deal from wherever it comes.
Therefore, I would submit that our rhetorical frames should begin to speak to the fact that properly run government is a good deal. Social Security is a guaranteed check that is always on time and comes every single month no matter how long you live. That’s a good deal.
And I think that we have to acknowledge that the altruistic, moral case for government is (temporarily, hopefully) on the decline and we need to argue in a way that accomodates that. On a separate track we must enlist the liberal clergy and others to begin to build the progressive values arguments back up, just as the Republicans continue to build their case for laissez-faire. But in the meantime, we need to realize that we are in an era of marketing to people’s individual wants and desires and needs. This is how they view the world.
I don’t think we need to be dishonest, but I fear that we are going to be bulldozed over and over again, even if we win the battle for social security, if we try to hang our hats on the moral case for good government. Someday, perhaps, we can get there. But today I think that the singular success of the Republican era is persuading people that selfishness is a positive good. Little Aynnie Rand must be popping a Dexie and lighting a cig with satisfaction down in the third circle right now.
There Is No Crisis is putting together a fun and informative way to deal with the Preznit’s State of the Union Destroy Social Security speech. Throw a house party and tune into a conference call afterward in which someone will interpret the soaring gibberish into English and educate your party about the nightmarish future Republicans intend for you to have in your old age.
(You can even incorporate my favorite, the Dubya Drinking game, points corresponding to how many times he says freedom, liberty, ownership and “personal accounts.” But serve half shots or the party will be passed out before the conference call.)
“There Is No Crisis” is the response to Bush’s repeated assertions that he is trying to “save social security.” It’s a bold way of framing it and it puts the onus on President Inarticulate to explain a complicated policy issue. (Even when they write a good speech, he’s much more believable on the “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” kind of Hollywood dialog than making a complicated case for a particular policy.) This is good politics. The other side is on the defensive.
The key to arguing this issue is to recognize their various arguments and make them explain them. When you do that, they begin to see the outlines of a basically dishonest scheme. Here are a few ideas about handling this:
“The system is going broke”
When you’re standing around the water cooler and somebody says that the system has to be fixed because it’s going broke, ask them to explain why the date that the trust fund “runs out” keeps going up, from 2029 to 2042 and maybe higher even though the baby boomer retirement ages have been known for 50 years now. When they sputter, as they will, adopt the world weary derisive tone usually reserved for war hawks and law and order types and say, “Yeah, whatever. It sounds like a scam to me There’s no crisis.”
“Private accounts give a better return on investment”
Ask them if they agree that every portfolio needs some part of their retirement savings that isn’t subject to being Enroned. And don’t they think that having at least a minimal defined benefit plan is what allows people to take on more risk with their 401K’s and IRA’s and other investments? A prudent investor knows that everybody needs a very conservative portion of their portfolio to fall back on if they have a bad break. Isn’t that really what social security is?
“The trust fund is a bunch of worthless IOU’s”
Do they realize that those “worthless “IOU’s” are government bonds? Those bonds are backed by the most reliable contract in the world “the full faith and credit of the Treasury of the United States of America.” If government bonds are worthless then social security is the least of our problems. In fact, we should probably start burying gold in the back yard and laying in the canned goods.
“The baby boomer retirees are going to outnumber the workers and that’s why the system is going broke”
Then how come Ronald Reagan signed the legislation back in 1983 that made all workers (and especially boomers in their top earning years) pay “extra” in order to pay for the baby boomer’s retirements? What happened to that plan?
Then there is the big question that come back at you. It’s not easy to explain, but you can do it if they’ll let you finish a sentence.
“Why do they want to do this now?”
A variety of reasons, but the most important is that this is the first time since its inception that the Republicans have had the institutional power to dismantle social security. They have been against it since the day the legislation was signed and have been building this case for privatization since at least the fifties. Now that they are in power, the modern Republican party is conducting a radical economic (and foreign policy) experiment based upon their belief in laissez faire capitalism and world military domination but they have not been honest with the American people about what they are doing. We are by nature a cautious people when it comes to radical change and they know it. So they are creating “problems” and “crises” that don’t exist (like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and social security going broke) in order to persuade people that that the old ways don’t work anymore and that “modern” solutions are needed.
Privatizing Social Security is a very bold step back to the future. There was once a time when Americans closing in on the end of their lives either worked until they dropped dead or lived their final years in grinding poverty if they had not been able to save enough money during their earning years. There are an infinite number of reasons why this might be so. It could happen to anyone. Social Security was a recognition that everybody needs something to fall back on in life if things don’t go well. Paying into it over the course of your earning years is a small price to pay for the peace of mind in knowing that even if your 401K or your IRA or your house doesn’t appreciate the way you hope, there will at least be something that will keep the wolves at bay. There is only one entity on the face of this earth that can make a guarantee like that— the government of the richest most powerful nation on earth. We can afford to guarantee that the elderly live their final years in a dignified, decent manner. We’ve managed to do that for the last seventy years and there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to continue. There is no crisis. Let’s move on to dealing with real problems.
If that doesn’t work, give them this article by George Will. Will makes the honest Republican argument:
The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in “crisis.” That is an exaggeration. Democrats say it should not be reformed because there is no crisis. That is a non sequitur. Social Security should be reformed not because there is a crisis but because there is an opportunity.
[…]
Voluntary personal accounts will allow competing fund managers, rather than a government monopoly on income transfers from workers to retirees, to allocate a large pool of money. This will enhance the economic dynamism conducive to an open society. Personal accounts will respect individuals’ autonomy and competence and will narrow the wealth gap by facilitating the accumulation of wealth — bequeathable wealth — by people of modest incomes.
There you have it. If you want to trust the “competing fund managers” who backed Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers with every penny of your retirement instead of leaving a modest portion with the most reliable guarantor on earth, the United States of America, then you’ll love social security privatization. It’ll make your elderly years very exciting and unpredictable.
Click over to There is No Crisis and sign up for a house party. I swear it’s the only way to get through what is going to be the most unctuous and shockingly dishonest SOTU that’s ever been given. Peggy will crawl her way back up William Kristol’s keister and proclaim it a home run. Steve Forbes will probably be anchoring the CNN coverage in a Chicken Little costume. You are going to need normal people around you.
Oh, and click over to this cool Move-On ad, soon to be seen in wavering districts throughout the country.
This interesting article on the long term plan for SS privatization in today’s LA Times contains a shocking, shocking revelation!
“It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible,” wrote Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, Heritage Foundation analysts, in a 1983 article in the Cato Journal. “But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform.”
…analysts Butler and Germanis argued in their prescient 1983 article — provocatively titled “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy” — that privatizing Social Security required a calculated, long-term campaign to transform the political environment.
Now that’s odd. It seems like just a minute ago that I read a scathing take down of “the left” that seemed to indicate that such imagery wasn’t exactly, well …. patriotic:
And this review of Steve Earle’s concert in Knoxville — in which he performed before a hammer and sickle — observes:
The Soviet imagery might have seemed corny five years ago, but in the current right-leaning climate, a left-wing backlash is inevitable. Expect to see more of it.
If Kerry had won, would it be understandable for Republican artists to perform in front of swastikas? And how seriously should we take people who wish we had lost the Cold War, and who want us to lose this one?
Well, there aren’t any Republican artists so that point is moot. There are, however, VMI cadets who think that dressing up in nazi gear and blackface is training for future leadership and anyone who doesn’t like it should just STFU:
Numerous VMI supporters defended the students’ right to enjoy themselves during a break from their rigorous training program and attacked what they perceive as political correctness run amok.
“You have no idea what we go through here at VMI, and if the cadets and rats choose to have fun on Halloween, you should not have anything to say about it,” a VMI cadet wrote. “Just remember, we are the future leaders of America, and we will be the ones defending your rights.”
I wonder which party that young man belongs to?
You would think that those on the right would find it a bit alarming that right wing analysts were openly apeing communist revolutionary tactics even before the cold war was “won,” too, but apparently there’s nothing wrong with a little sincere flattery.
When it comes to obscure left wing professors who nobody has ever heard of, though, the buck has come to a full stop at the door of us decaying immoral liberals who must be held accountable for every word he said.
And they are right. This kind of nutty talk shouldn’t be allowed to pollute the discourse without somebody standing up and saying no. So I’ll tell you what, fellas. I’ll disavow this joker from Nowhere University when you guys disavow the vomitous spew with which your millionaire pundits and “entertainers” disgrace this nation’s airwaves every single day to tens of millions of listeners, ok?
Here’s a little sample of the fetid swill that passes for political discourse on the right in this country:
LIMBAUGH: We killed his sons. We took his country. We put him in jail. He is still calmer and more rational than Howard Dean after he lost Iowa. He’s calmer and more rational than Gore after he lost his mind. He’s calmer and more rational than George Soros is.
LIMBAUGH: I mean, if there is a party that’s soulless, it’s the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals — by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know? No. No. You can’t go there.
LIMBAUGH: Women still make up an average of only 13 percent of police officers… They’re never happy. And I don’t mean women. I’m talking about the activists. Don’t lose your cookies out there. This is according to the National Center for Women and Policing, which is a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation of American, which is the feminazis. This is exactly what I’m talking about. So what’s the reaction to this? Well, here’s my reaction, in the typical Rush fashion: If we’ve got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu [Algore pronunciation] Grab. That’s how you do it.
VESTER: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6]
“My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call “women” at the Democratic National Convention.”
SAVAGE: And we have all of the leaders — we have Obergrupenführer Clinton; we have Grupenführer Carter; we have Brigadeführer Daschle. … There are only a few rotten führers on the bottom of the corporals; they’re the ones wearing the little funny green costumes down there. But they’re all there. That’s how I see them.
Instapundit: There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.
This particular type of rhetoric using violent imagery, nazi and terrorist comparisons, revolting physical descriptions,and characterizations as irrational, soulless, fragrant, hirsute, rotten, far gone can only be described as eliminationist. Its tone is so derisive and so relentlessly contemptuous that it becomes difficult for people who listen to this stuff everyday to even think of liberals or “the left” or Democrats as even human much less fellow Americans.
There was a time when I thought that someone like Instapundit was a cut above this type of thing, but no more. It’s no longer just right wing talk show hosts ostensibly “entertaining” the folks. It’s law professors and Claremont fellows publicly accusing “the left” of being terrorist sympathizers.
Some people need to get out of the right wing echo chamber and breathe some fresh air. They have lost the capacity to see and hear what they and their allies are really saying. This is a very destructive genie they have let out of bottle.
Update: Now this is just funny. Instapundit quotes Ed Driscoll writing:
In the 1950s, Bill Buckley was able to create a new conservatism by casting out the John Birchers and their anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories. Now it’s the left’s turn to try to do much the same.
Uh huh. That’s a nice story. It’s true that William Buckley chastized the birchers for accusing Eisenhower of being a communist. But cast them out? Nah.
“…the society was founded to fight subversive Communism within the United States. Its other objectives have included the abolition of the graduated income tax, the repeal of social security legislation, the impeachment of various high government officials, the end to busing for the purpose of school integration, the end to U.S. membership in the United Nations, and the nullification of the treaty that turned over the Panama Canal to Panama.”
Now where have I heard that agenda before? Give me a minute….
Replace “communist” with “liberal” (when they even bother with the distinction) and there is very little difference between what you hear coming out of the mouths of modern conservatives and the John Birchers. As far as conspiracies go, there is nothing like the myth of the liberal media to keep those paranoid juices flowing. They weren’t cast out, they were simply asked to be loyal Republicans.
Following up on my post below, Matthews just reiterated the apeculation that Ahmad Chalabi is likely to be part of this new government. Pat Lang, the intelligence expert said that he hoped that Chalabi won’t be given the Ministry of Interior because he would be in charge of the police. No shit.
Is it at all possible that Ahmad Chalabi is going to be “elected” under American occupation and be allowed to take an active role? It sure seems like a funny way to establish the legitimacy of this election.
I guess they can get away with absolutely anything. After all, they got away with Florida, they can certainly install every neocon’s favorite Iraqi if they damn well please. Legitimacy is for losers.
Yesterday on one of the Fox financial shows, James Rogers, author of Investment Biker, commodities guru, and neighbor-down-the-block (an utterly irrelevant detail I thought I’d toss in to make this blog sound more “personal”), was asked by host Neil Cavuto whether the elections in Iraq would be successful. Rogers said, “They’ll be successful because the media will say they’re successful,” adding impishly, “Fox News probably already has the results.”
And I think they got them from CNN. I haven’t seen this much gushing since Asheigh Banfield threw on a little black burka and hitched a camel ride to Kabul.
Clearly, the media loves these trumped up Iraq milestones. They sent Anderson and Campbell over to hang out in the Green Zone and get “the feel” for the place while they patch up their pancake blush and admire each other’s groovy winter desert wear in the bar.
They all agree that there was an excellent turn-out. 72%! (But I hear that Warren Mitofsky may have screwed up the exit polling, so don’t hold your breath. This number is subject to change.) It’s bigger than most people predicted, only rivaled by the phenomenal 98% turn-out for Saddam in the last election thus proving that Iraqis have always been big on voting. You can’t blame them. Abu Ghraib is murder this time of year.
I agree, of course, that democracy is the bestest thing in the whole wide world (except the Bible) and that we have a responsibility to spread it and layer it and smooth it and sprinkle coconut on it it wherever there are people who don’t have it. Nobody argues with that. (Praise democracy. Praise freedom. Praise liberty. Praise God. Praise George W. Bush. Amen. nowletmego.)
The counting is sure to be transparent to all. That’s how we do these things in Murikin democracy. Needless to say, no Iraqi will ever have cause to believe that the vote was rigged in favor of American interests. Why, I’m pretty sure that Lil’ Judy Miller just told Chris Matthews that Ahmad Chalabis “list” looks to be doing very well. She’s quite the reporter. Always has the big scoop. She knows which lists have done well already. Matthews posits that Chalabi ends up as oil minister.
But, whaterver. This is a great day for Americademocracylibertyandfreedom. As Judy just reminded us, the president is on a roll. “He” has just had three free elections — Afghanistan, Palestine and now Iraq. She didn’t mention the US.
Thanks again to Kathy G, here’s some more from traditional morals maven, Maggie Gallagher:
(Via Lexis-Nexis) August 10, 1998, Monday
AN UNWED TEEN MOM’S DILEMMA
BY: MAGGIE GALLAGHER
SUPPOSE you’re an intelligent 17-year-old single girl who has just had a baby. Suppose you’re even smart enough to know that, as one such young unwed mom named Chasity told The New York Times, “I made a mistake … I’m not recommending this.” Now suppose your local school’s chapter of the National Honor Society, worried about sending a message that an unwed teen parent is a good role model, turns you down for membership, despite your high G.P.A.
What do you do?
If you are Chasity Glass, or her friend Somer Chipman, two 17-year- old students at Grant County High School in Kentucky, you agree to become poster girls for a new national legal campaign by the ACLU to establish unwed motherhood as the right of minor children everywhere.
Not that I blame Somer and Chasity so much. They’re teen-agers after all, and teens are notoriously obsessed with their own feelings and rights. That’s one of the reasons that youngsters shouldn’t be parents, especially outside of marriage. But what’s the ACLU’s excuse?
Gender equality, intones ACLU lawyer Sara Mandelbaum self-righteously, as if the natural first step to raising women’s status is to confer on teen-age girls a right to have babies. There is no social attitude or law on the books that is as big an obstacle to career achievement for women as having babies outside of wedlock, especially before adulthood.
And, incidentally, research shows that becoming an unwed mom is an equally large obstacle to eventually building a successful marriage; not only is it harder to find a good mate, but having a child with a man who is not your husband makes divorce more likely. All the way around these two girls have taken a step that may injure their own and, more important, their babies’ chances in life for years to come. I wish them luck.
Yeah, a mother fighting for the right to an honor that she already earned because screeching moralists like Maggie Gallagher are worried “the message” it sends is sure to harm their babies’ chances in life for years to come. I’m just sure of it. it must be true. She’s an expert.
Maggie waited until she was 21 before she got knocked up by her kid’s father whom she didn’t bother to marry. By her own standards she was too selfish to marry for the next ten years. But she always finds others to castigate for their immorality and selfishness, rarely copping to what she would call a decadent lifestyle if another woman lived it. Her story remains vague and unknown to most people who read her material. Her close friends, the right wing think tankers and pundits in Manhattan and DC don’t see anything amiss, however. (Falafels and strip poker anyone?)
The timeline suggests, although I don’t have proof, that she may have been in a delicate condition while she was at Yale. I wonder what kind of message Maggie would think it sends for a pregnant college student to be allowed to receive a diploma when she is unwed. But, we needn’t worry about that. If Maggie (being the paragon of honesty that she is) were pregnant at the time of her graduation from college she undoubtedly would have stayed home from the ceremony because it would set such a bad example for others.
You have to give her credit, though. She became a hypocritical wingnut harpy lecturing others about their mistakes right out of the box. That’s the way it’s done girls. Get with the “do as I say, not as I do” party and make some big bucks. Even an “illegitimate” child and really bad haircut won’t hold you back.
Here are some more of those anti-feminist traditional values that sell so well:
…amazingly, deep within the bowels Title IX regulations (mostly used
heretofore to encourage women’s sports), the federal government does define unwed pregnancy as a young girl’s gender rights.
The intentions of Title IX were no doubt good: encouraging pregnant teens to stay in school. But time has proved even a high school diploma does not magically eliminate the enormous hardship that out-of-wedlock childbearing imposes. The ACLU’s misguided campaign will not advance women’s equality; it will no doubt encourage at least a few more immature teens to think about motherhood in terms of their own desires rather than their child’s needs.
Like a lying apple cheeked Yalie mom who forgot to get married for ten years while she created a “career” as a “marriage expert.”
But perhaps they might take a cue from another single young woman from Chasity and Somer’s high school, who had a child a few years back. She too had good grades and she too was denied entry into the National Honor Society. But unlike Somer and Chasity, Krissy Ford decided it was not worth making a federal case of it: “I had no hard feelings at all,” Krissy Ford told the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader last May. “It’s something that’s not worth dragging your school down. … It’s a mistake I made.”
Krissy respects the decision the two younger unwed moms made, but recalls, “My focus was on my child.”
If only the rest of us could be so mature.
Oh my yes. There is no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place if Maggie had been mature enough to “focus” on her child instead of helping to create a multi-million dollar industry devoted to indoctrinating “the people” in backward bourgeois values (at which they themselves scoff) for political gain and financial profit.
In light of Maggie’s love-child, I wonder how all of her fellow up-tighty righties explain the strange advice to fellow travellers (from February 1999) such as “If you are going on the moral attack, wash your own hands first,” and “those of us who see clearly the connection between the privatization of morality(especially sexual morality) and the public squalor we must all live in have to be in the business not of rallying troops but of making conversions,” in light of the fact that she stands accused of not only greed, avarice and mendacity in taking payola from the government, but she’s also obviously someone who lived a secret life as an elitist libertine while making a living chastizing young girls for being as immoral as she is?
(Oh, what am I saying? They will resort to their usual sophistry and say that Gallagher never explicitly condemned unwed motherhood for dark haired women who graduated from Yale and besides keeping it a quasi secret is the right thing to do because she was trying to set an example. Next?)
Maggie Gallagher believes that unwed motherhood is the scourge of modern American life. In one of the self-serving screeds in which she failed to disclose that she was on the take from the Bush administration, she wrote:
But $300 million is a tiny fraction of what we spend to deal with the social problems created by high rates of illegitimacy and divorce. You know what really costs big bucks? Having one-third of our babies born outside of marriage. These children, through no fault of their own, are more likely to be poor,
welfare-dependent, to need special education, to get physically ill (Medicaid
dollars), to become substance abusers, experience mental illness, commit acts of
juvenile delinquency and become adult criminals, drop out of high school, be
held back a grade, and to go onto become young unwed mothers and fathers
themselves, perpetuating an expensive cycle of downward mobility.
Well, yes. Unless one is a high paid GOP shill who works as a “marriage expert” in no less than three of the bogus GOP propaganda front groups that call themselves “think tanks.” Then you can fuck to your hearts content, get knocked up, stay unmarried for ten years while you pursue your elitist career as a “scholor” and “columnist” and still be able to hector the rest of the country about traditional morality.
Man, oh man, The right is really where the money is. I’m beginning to feel a little bit foolish for not taking advantage of it. If you can cast off all personal integrity and can bear to kiss the asses of people like James Dobson, they don’t care what kind of a freak you are. What a great scam.
Update: Media Matters has all the data of the GOP front groups our gal Maggie has been sucking from for her entire “career” as a “marriage expert.” (I was going to say “who do you have to blow to get some of that action” and then I realized…ohmydeargawd)
Correction: I misspelled Kathy G’s name. It has been fixed in this post and the one below.
Did I just hear Richard Perle on Nightline say that the biggest mistake we made in Iraq was not handing the country over to Ahmad Chalabi three years ago? Yes, and the biggest flaw in our national economy is that we haven’t turned the Federal Reserve over to Ken Lay. Yes, and the biggest mistake I am likely to make in trying to understand this Festival of Fruitcakes is failing to have laid in enough mushrooms to get me through the State of the Union. To be fair, Perle tap-danced all around the name until Koppel finally brought it up, and then he said “Ahmad Chalabi” the way most people say, “trichinosis.” Still, sweet storebought Jeebus.
What do you suppose it would take to get Pierce to write these pithy gems more often than once a week?
Commenting on Eschaton yesterday, reader Kathy G let Maggie’s cat out of the bag:
Gallagher just looooves to rant about “family values” and how important it is that “elites” set an example (presumably so the lower orders remain properly deferential).
By any definition, Gallagher herself must be considered a member of the elite class – she went to Yale, after all. And her explanation about why she never went public about taking taxpayer money to ho for Bush – that she “forgot” about the $20,000 – kind of speaks for itself. Man, I sure as hell wish *I* could “forget” about $20,000.
Which brings us to this: Gallagher is yet another member of the wingnut “do as I say, not as I do” family values crowd. It turns out that, once upon a time, Ms. Gallagher was – gasp! horrors! – an UNWED MOTHER.
Apparently, as a young and lusty college-age lass, Maggie enjoyed her fun a little too much, and got knocked up. (Undoubtedly, the dastardly perpetrator of this deed was one of them Ivy League libruls, who did it solely with the plan of crediting our virtuous heroine).
How do I know this? Gallagher has written about it – though only in the context of a pious wingnut column about the horrors of abortion.
Anyway, she had the kid but, to my knowledge, did NOT marry the father. She didn’t meet and marry the present Mr. Gallagher (or whoever) until later.
I wish I had access to Lexis-Nexis right now, because I’m sure I could pin this story down if her old columns for the NY Post are up there. Hopefully Atrios or one of you other Eschatons can find it and broadcast it throughout the land. Maggie, you shameless hussy, you!
Of course, NOW Gallagher is unctuously, properly remorseful about her “sin.” But that didn’t prevent her from having her fun when she wanted it. It never does with these guys and gals. They want to be able to do anything they damn please, but then they turn around and with hell’s own fury castigate anyone else who wants to do the same.
Especially if, you know, they’re “not the right class, dear.” Or are the wrong color.
Frankly, I’m shocked. How unlike a wingnut to be so hypocritical.
Now, I know all of you Maggie defenders out there will probably say this is just some kind of Desperate Housewives catfight. Mags would never mislead her readers this way. But, you would be wrong. Maggie herself has written about it, rarely to be sure, and mostly a long time ago, but it’s not a complete secret. Just a little something she doesn’t advertise.
Maggie has been telling everyone who will listen, ad nauseum, that she has been a “marriage expert” for twenty years. But for ten of those years, fully half of her career, she was an unwed mother. That’s quite a CV.
Kathy Grier was kind enough to send along some links to a few of the rare Maggie writings in which she admits to her little moral boo-boo.
Here’s the evidence. (I know it’s early in the day, but you should pour yourself a stiff drink before you read it. You’re going to need it. Wow.)
And here’s an interview with the hedonistic San Francisco liberal mag, Salon, in which she says “I was an unwed mother for ten years.”
Let’s just say that there isn’t a paper trail showing that quote amongst her voluminous writings for right wing publications. She certainly doesn’t mention it when she’s hectoring girls about sex out of wedlock or decrying the husbandless home.
One can understand how difficult it is to find a mate and all, but if you believe so strongly that children should not be raised without both parents, ten years seems like quite a long time to wait to find a father for your child. There are matchmaking services on the Right that could have found Maggie a nice Christian man from Ardmore,Oklahoma who needed a mother for his five children. Maggie believes that any father is better than no father (unless he’s gay, of course) so the proper thing to have done would be for her to sacrifice her “career” as a “marriage expert” and you know, actually get married to any man who would have her in order to provide a proper home for her son. Otherwise she’s just another liberal feminazi putting her own need to live where she wanted and put her education to work and find a man she loved before the needs of her child. What will we tell the children?
This is an epidemic on the right. Gallagher reminds me of Susan Carpenter McMillan anti-abortion zealot (and Paula Jones stylist) who was revealed to have had two abortions to which she had never admitted.
I’m beginning to feel sorry for the poor sincere red state schmucks who believe in all this traditional values stuff. A bunch of slick, elitist, wingnut hucksters are taking them to the cleaners.
Calling Hollywood. Time for a remake of “Elmer Gantry.”
