Pharyngula::Bush is not Carter

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Bush is not Carter

PZ Myers • 26 Comments (last page)

I think this is an inappropriate comparison: Kevin Drum thinks Bush is like Carter, leading his party "over a cliff." That's nuts.

I agree that Carter was an ineffectual president (despite being a decent person), but he qualified at worst as a mediocrity, a placeholder. The monstrous disaster in that election was Ronald Reagan, the beast who set the Republican party on the road to its current extremism. Reagan was the guy who taught the Republicans that you can acquire power and screw the citizen while getting him/her to vote for you if you cloak your venality in a folksy smile. I am sick of this after-the-fact respect for Reagan that even some Democrats exhibit: he was a catastrophe, someone I would have said was the worst president in at least a century, until Bush came along and topped him.

Willliam Gibson says it well:

If I were to put together a truly essential thank-you list for the people who most made it possible for me to write my first six novels, I'd certainly owe as much to Ronald Reagan as to Bill Gates or Lou Reed. Reagan's presidency put the grit in my dystopia. His presidency was the fresh kitty litter I spread for utterly crucial traction on the icey driveway of uncharted futurity. His smile was the nightmare in my back pocket.

I will admit that, like Drum, I also voted for Anderson in the 1980 presidential election. I was planning to hold my nose and vote for Carter, because there was no way I wanted to see Reagan in office, but changed my vote at the last minute. I was one of the many West Coast voters rendered irrelevant by the network news in 1980, who declared the elections over before the polls had closed in Oregon, and before I'd had a chance to vote.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1429/EMgiQhQx/

Comments:

#7350: — 10/21 at 10:00 AM
PZ, would it be possible to separate your science blog from your politics blog? Trying to encompass both within one blog strains the seams; the focus is lost.

#7353: — 10/21 at 10:35 AM
Start your own blog Andy, and butt out.

Myers, you really voted for John Anderson in 1980? Man, no wonder you are a confused soul.

#7354: PZ Myers — 10/21 at 10:44 AM
You just have to keep in mind that this weblog is all about me -- then the focus is perfect.

But seriously, this is an issue that's come up before, and I've been thinking about it. This software does have some powerful stuff built into it, and I've been thinking that I could set up a subpage that only shows a particular category, with its own RSS feed. It's a low priority right now, though, and will have to wait until at least the winter break before I can play with it.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#7355: — 10/21 at 10:52 AM
Andy,

I agree with Bob (just this once (-: ). The combination of ideas and commentary brought forth by the tension and synthesis of the scientific and political threads makes this a unique and much more interesting blog/website. You might think of it as real-time liberal arts education. There are plenty of blogs which you may find more to your taste Andy, or as Bob recommends, you can always start your own.

And, I also voted for Anderson as an Oregonian. Much of the Republican party establishment in Oregon at the time was supporting Anderson and refused to support Reagan. While I am not a Republican, this sort of insightful thinking makes me proud to be an Oregonian, as did the Wayne Morse vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

#7357: — 10/21 at 11:06 AM
Don't change a thing, please. I like the combination...one can always scroll down or not read. This is about you and by you and perhaps for you as well but I'm glad that this is the tack you have taken and that you share this with us. It is very much like I imagine having a conversation with you with you asking "Have you seen this neat...from 'Nature'?" And then at some point the conversation shifting to politics or the humane society or Morris or to the kids or parents. Fight the tendency to group!

#7359: — 10/21 at 11:50 AM
Please, please, please don't change a thing. Pharyngula is my favorite blog precisely because of the mix of issues that you (PZ) engage with insight and eloquence.

#7361: PZ Myers — 10/21 at 12:13 PM
Don't worry -- this site would stay exactly the same. There would just be a separate url (for instance, pharyngula.org/science) that would only show the articles that are in the science category, to spare the delicate sensibilities of the right-wingers.

After all, even Republicans deserve to learn.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#7374: — 10/21 at 02:10 PM
Andy -

This isn't a "bitching about the blog you're blogging on" weblog. More specifically, this is an article about Bush being compared to Carter, not an article about "bitching about the content of the weblog which this article is posted on."

But, the point is, your bitching is welcome on this weblog and even within this article, even though it's technically not supposed to be (according to it's name and "usual" subject matter).

Such is the beauty of PZ's wonderful creation

#7375: — 10/21 at 02:28 PM
PZ--you haven't convinced me; the Republicans you are talking about can't learn (there is evidence that some can and do, e.g., R's for Kerry and so on). First you gotta' want to learn. And their sensibilities aren't delicate by any means. They may visit here for the therapy that comes with ranting and raving about the injustices of reasoning and evidence, etc. I still don't like the idea and agree that "the beauty of PS's wonderful creation" is well, beautiful. But I see it coming and will adapt, preferring not to die.

#7379: — 10/21 at 02:56 PM
ed-

It is not PZ's ideas that are necessarily beautiful, it is the opportunity with which he is providing all of us; that is, a forum without restrictions where people from all parties alike can come to discuss his/her own opinions.

Get it? It's like, free speech and stuff.
Get it? It's kinda like allowing people to live how they want to live in a free society.

Sure, PZ has his own opinions, and he expresses them vehemently - and he even on occasion has called people idiots for believing differently than he.

But, he does all of this because he can! This is the beauty of our country. People can have their own opinions, and not be worried about being prosecuted or beaten or killed. For now...

I certainly believe in the principles that give Republicans the right to believe what they want to believe, and that they "don't want to learn."

So, what is it that they don't want to learn? The ideals that make a democracy great? The fact that their own party is fighting to rid the country of these ideals?

Therein lies the irony. A president, a self-proclaimed man of God, a candidate who says he's for the people and wants to protect them from evils - running on a ticket that is lying to Americans and attempting to take away their rights. Well, while there may be plenty of threats coming from terrorist organizations and the like, I would say a much deeper and potentially fatal threat is coming from a political party that is trying its best to do away with our supposed "God-given rights" as described in the Constitution written by the first (and apparently most naive) Americans.

#7384: — 10/21 at 03:35 PM
As much as Carter's presidency went down in flames, he has totally made up for it in the years since.

#7389: — 10/21 at 05:38 PM
In conjunction with timmy's comments, I believe I would rather be free and living in fear (from terrorists, etc.), than be "safe" with a President that denies our basic human rights.

Of course, this is assuming that the President which denies our human rights (i.e. Bush) actually can keep us safe, which he invariably CANNOT.

So, it seems to me that the easy choice would be to elect the candidate which will:
a) Tell the truth to Americans
b) Keep our country safe
c) Preserve our constitutional rights

JFK - 3 for 3
GWB - 0 for 3

Let's not let down the founders of our country.

#7392: — 10/21 at 07:05 PM
PZ,

That would work great to have a way to just get the science stuff. I have often wanted to mention this blog to certain people for the great science stuff, but haven't because I just don't want to bring politics into my relationship with them. Also, some creationists family members of mine who could really benefit from some of your posts on science would immediately dismiss whatever you have to say if they saw the politics stuff.

I enjoy it the way it is, but I would love to have a way to share it for the science and without the politics.

#7398: — 10/21 at 11:14 PM
The Carter defeat proves (at least to me) that the typical American voter doesn't really want a moral person in office. They much prefer one who pretends to be moral while allowing them to practice all their vices. Carter was, and still is, the kind of person Bush pretends to be. Carter understands what his religion's founder taught (thus his support of Habitat for Humanity) while Bush does not (thus his judgments of others, like homosexuals, a practice specifically prohibited by the person Bush claims to worship and follow). I know you criticize religion, as do I, but at least Carter actually understood the message of his religion, not the absurd filigrees added by the type of religious establishment that Jesus fought against.

#7400: Hank Fox — 10/22 at 07:51 AM
Andy, good luck with those creationist family members -- you're gonna need it. My experience with people like that (I have a born-again brother in Texas) is that the thing that makes them creationists makes them virtually unable to understand or appreciate anything new. I sometimes think the only way into their heads is to start back ten years before they convert and solidify, and work on them THEN. I still kinda goggle at people who can use a computer AND the internet to rail against science, or even reality itself.

I wonder if, rather than trying to tiptoe around their blind spots, you'd be better off just being honest with them.

Timmy, whew, you said a mouthful and then some, when you talked about the irony of a party fighting to rid the country of American/democratic ideals.

I relate it to a basic fundie mindset. There was an experiment, way back in the 70s I think, where subjects wore glasses that made everything look upside down. After a period of constantly wearing them, their brains automatically adjusted so that everything flipped back to rightside-up. I sometimes wonder if being a fundie is like that -- you live with total lies for a certain period of time, and they flip around to sounding like truth. After that adjustment, you'd naturally choose the candidate who is most obviously lying. To you, it just feels ... right.

#7411: mattH — 10/22 at 01:04 PM
I think one of the big factors in Carter's loss was two-fold; they only had one debate, and George Will gave the Reagan campaign the Carter plan book for the debate. The fact that Will even has a job still is evidence of the decay of Washington journalism that long ago.

#7414: — 10/22 at 03:24 PM
How did Bush and so many other religious fundamentalists come to think that their way is the only way? Hank has some very powerful insight:

There was an experiment, way back in the 70s I think, where subjects wore glasses that made everything look upside down. After a period of constantly wearing them, their brains automatically adjusted so that everything flipped back to rightside-up. I sometimes wonder if being a fundie is like that — you live with total lies for a certain period of time, and they flip around to sounding like truth. After that adjustment, you’d naturally choose the candidate who is most obviously lying. To you, it just feels … right.

Exactly! So, for the common fundie, who/what plays the role of the glasses? Could it be religion? Very possible. But, I know some religious folk who are very good people; that is, as Mark said (above), "they realize what the founder of their religion taught."

I guess, the point of religion (I hope) is to give people the tools to live the right way. Just like any tool, some use them appropriately, some hit people over the head with them.

#7416: — 10/22 at 04:22 PM
I rarely defend fundies...so I hope no one passes out or anything. But not all religious folks are fundies and not all fundies are right wing loons. And many of what I would consider right wing loons have been basically manipulated by those with an agenda. I'd like to see fundies who've been conned develop more critical thinking ability, and there are definitely some that are outright hoplessly fucked up for life on bizarre ideology. But most of them are more deserving of our help and understanding than anything else.

Trackback: Privatizing higher education Tracked on: Glorfindel of Gondolin (66.225.255.53) at 2004 10 24 08:07:15
We live in a time when Americans seem incapable of critically scrutinizing what politicians tell them--4 out of 10 Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11, and 3 out of ten believe he personally...

#7504: — 10/24 at 11:17 PM
Exactly, how did Reagan "screw" the citizen?

#7507: PZ Myers — 10/24 at 11:32 PM
Do you remember Laffer curves and supply side economics? Tax cuts for the rich? Iran-Contra? The Reagan recession? Contras funding their campaigns by running cocaine into the US? Ballooning budget deficits? Declines in the average working wage? His phony rants about "welfare queens"?

Reagan was a horror. Everything Reagan did wrong, Bush has amplified.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#7550: — 10/25 at 03:13 PM
Where did the Democratic Party go wrong? Howard Dean was king of the world a year ago. Though I didn't like his politics, I always thought that what you saw was what you got. He didn't change his tune to fit his venue; he didn't bend for every wind. Don't you guys miss that? Isn't he the guy you really wanted? He stuck with his message opposing the war, unlike Kerry who used to be against it and now is the new Rambo. That's what we had with Reagan and have with Bush--people with vision, leadership and a sense of mission. The Democrats had it with Johnson and Truman. Give us a candidate who stands his ground for the left and let the people choose. Bush isn't hiding or dodging. You know who he is. For example, he's a practicing Christian. Doesn't hide it, but doesn't make a huge deal out of it. Look at Kerry recently. Now he's the super-Christian, the ex-choir boy, the devout believer. Doesn't this burn you atheists up? (The answer, I suspect, is: "No; we know he's only posing, just like when he's Rambo.)
That being said--if Kerry gets elected this year, it cuts Hillary out in 4 years. In that sense, we all win.

#7552: PZ Myers — 10/25 at 03:23 PM
You can't seriously believe Reagan and Bush were the actual personification of their image, can you? Bush is the one who wants you to believe he is Captain Codpiece, Straight-Shootin' Top Gun, Anointed of God. He's not. He doesn't have vision, other than venal shortsightedness; he doesn't offer leadership, he's a vacuum at the top.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#7553: DarkSyde — 10/25 at 03:34 PM
It's absurd to believe that either party is morally superior to the other if one examines that misguided notion in the light of history. POwer corrupts, end of story.

Scrutiny is what protects Americans from abuses of power. Open government is our friend and a hard nosed media can help alot also. our periods of greatest prosperity coincide more or less with periods in which one party controls the Congress, at least one house, and the other the Oval Office. That way they can keep the heat on each other and the press doesn't feel as much pressure from one side over the other.
One of my greatest concerns about the current junta in power is that they're so secretive about every godamn thuing they do. And secrecy on so many matters is not in our interests folks, don't kid yourself that it is.

#7563: — 10/25 at 06:32 PM
Democrats don't want "what you see is what you get." We don't care if the candidate worships God or prays to squirrels or whatever - as long as he doesn't force us all to practice squirrel-worshiping, and as long as he cares about the rights of our citizens.

What we want is a candidate that is willing to overcome his convictions if they don't comply with America's best interest.

Example: Dwight Eisenhower, president in the late 1950s, was trusted with the decision of whether or not to integrate our schools.

Now, it is well known that Eisenhower himself strongly favored segregating blacks and whites.

But, despite his personal beliefs, Dwight realized that having equal rights in the United States was an integral part of being the greatest democracy in the world.

So, even though most of the country (including those who voted for him) favored segregation, Eisenhower realized his mistakes, and went against a mainstream ideology - all for the benefit of our country.

George W. Bush could learn from this man.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Next entry: "Four-winged" bird?

Previous entry: A new announcement from the Human Genome Project

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Bush is not Carter

Info