General Political Thread

[uncool2pillow]

I couldn't find the 2016 election thread, where I was going to post this piece by Chuck Klosterman about liking an artist even if you have divergent political views.  Chris Christie touched on this a bit with his Springsteen love on the Stewart show.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/undocumented-diner.html?ref=magazine&_r=1&

 

Can I politically disagree with an artist and still love the art? I’m a conservative person who happens to love Bruce Springsteen apart from the political causes he champions. Is an artist ethically just in rejecting a fan for not supporting him politically? Am I a fool for supporting an artist who would personally reject me over my political beliefs? JAMIE McINTYRE, BRAINTREE, MASS.

 

Artists have no ethical responsibility to reflect — or even consider — the views of their fan base. This is one-way, mediated entertainment: Springsteen makes music and creates a persona, and you get to decide if that product is something you want in your life. And since the only tangible relationship you have with Springsteen is his music, there’s no problem with your seemingly contradictory support. How you experience and interpret his work is your choice (the artist can instruct otherwise, but he can’t enforce that instruction once his art enters the public sphere). A performer can stop a song from being co-opted by a politician, but he can’t demand that consumers dislike that politician.

 

As for Springsteen’s hypothetical rejection of you and your belief system: that’s a strange thing to worry about. For one thing, he might not reject you at all (he’d likely disagree with your opinions, but that’s not the same thing). And — more important — it would not matter if he did. His music doesn’t reject you. Besides, an artist’s political expression is not a contract with the audience. In the liner notes of Nirvana’s 1992 release “Incesticide,” Kurt Cobain outlined the type of person he did not want buying his music. It was the most direct attempt at fan rejection imaginable. Yet even that message could be read only if the shrink-wrapped CD was purchased and opened. The only people he could “reject” were those who had already bought his work, so his request was ultimately symbolic. It was a way to say, “This is how I look at the world, so listen with that worldview in mind.” When Springsteen talks about politics, he’s doing the same thing. Now, perhaps you don’t want to be a fan of anyone who doesn’t mirror your political biases. That’s your prerogative. But that suggests you’re interested in something other than music.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Great post. So tired of right-wingers saying certain artists should "shut up and play music," as if they should stop writing lyrics! Talk about a crabbed world view. It's offensive. I would never say Hank Williams Jr should shut up. I may think he's a dipshit, but he has the right to sing what he believes. That's America.

[uncool2pillow]

Well, I do wish the nuge would shut the hell up, but he's an idiot.

[LouieB]

Not the HIllary for President thread I was expecting.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

Aren't you rushing things a bit Lou?

 

Great post. So tired of right-wingers saying certain artists should "shut up and play music," as if they should stop writing lyrics! Talk about a crabbed world view. It's offensive. I would never say Hank Williams Jr should shut up. I may think he's a dipshit, but he has the right to sing what he believes. That's America.

I'm so tired of left-wingers saying that too!

[lost highway]

I would argue that musically, not politically, the left wing has a stronger showing.  I can listen to stuff I don't agree with (but it's harder to relate to), nevertheless the right can keep Nugent, and Hank Jr., and I'll keep REM, Wilco, Springsteen, and Pearl Jam.

 

 

In another political question, I've been hearing a lot about the change in the country's view of gay marriage.  There was a poll recently that showed more for than against.  How can the republican party come to terms with the current prevailing attitudes and growing demographics of our country?

[KevinG]

Aren't you rushing things a bit Lou?

 

I agree, the CBS morning show had this whole thing on Hilary and how she should run and if she ran she would beat any Republican like a rented mule.  Gingrich even said as much.  

 

There are about 3 years before the primary season kicks off.  A lot could change.  If PBO's policies fail, or if the GOP continues their policies of obstruction that we had the last 4 years will change things quite a bit.  Also the changing attitudes of American's (gay marriage, drug legalization, etc.) will play a large role in 2016.  My thought is if the GOP can move away from the social issues and be a big tent fiscal party, they have a much better chance then if the GOP in 2016 is the same as 2012.  

 

But this whole presidential talk reminds me of an addict who can't give up the drug they have been mainlining for the last 2.5 years.  The talking heads just keep needing that last fix.  

[LouieB]

It may well be too early to talk about Hillary for president, but everyone is despite the fact that the  inaguration for Obama's second term has not even occured.  In this ADD environment, the hype is just unbelieveable.  Romney has still not come to terms with losing and we are already talking about this. 

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Anyone want to talk Fiscal Cliff?

 

Think a deal will actually get done?  Surprised by the negotiating tactics used by both sides? 

 

It seems to me the GOP is being far more ridiculous in their "negotiating"

[bleedorange]

Anyone want to talk Fiscal Cliff?

 

Think a deal will actually get done?  Surprised by the negotiating tactics used by both sides? 

 

It seems to me the GOP is being far more ridiculous in their "negotiating"

 

I'm shocked.

[KevinG]

I'm shocked.

 

Shocked that I think the GOP plan is ridiculous, or shocked on how ridiculous the latest GOP plan is?

 

Assuming it is the former, let me explain.   Boehner's plan offered 150 billion in less revenue (and by inverse offers 150 billion more in cuts) then he offered in 2011. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/boehners-latest-tax-offer-is-150-billion-less-than-he-offered-in-2011/

 

So in the beginning of November a majority of voting Americans choose Obama, who stated through out his campaign the way he would deal with the fiscal cliff is to raise taxes on the wealthy (and save entitlements and spending).  For the GOP then to come to the table with a offer like this is nothing short of ridiculous and a tad bit insulting.  I am saying that the GOP should roll over and take whatever PBO wants, of course not.  But come on, have a bit of sense and understanding of what the people said in Nov.  Understand that a solid plan will come from revenue increases and spending cuts. 

[lost highway]

The right wing cries that reducing military spending will damage employment is a hilarious, incidental, acknowledgement that the Keynesian perspective is valid.

[KevinG]

The right wing cries that reducing military spending will damage employment is a hilarious, incidental, acknowledgement that the Keynesian perspective is valid.

And holding America hostage by using the Debt Limit is equally ridiculous. It is more sad then anything else. The fact they are willing to hurt Americans so the rich can save a bit of money.

[uncool2pillow]

A deal will get done.  Period.  It's just if it's another crap deal like the one that created this fiscal cliff in the first place or something more substantial along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles proposal. 

 

Make the rich pay more in taxes and some SERIOUS, hardcore entitlement reform.  Start sliding in some means testing, start slowly increasing the age of medicare and SS from 65 to at least 68 if not 70. 

 

I'm no economist, but I think a serious compromise would do more to boos the economy than anything else I can think of.

[Tweedling]

The rich will find ways to not have to pay. They always do. So it won't create the "revenue" they forecast. It's all fucked if you ask me. Cliff, ceiling, easing..... It's looking like a flushing toilet. Hahaha

We really should just give lefties everything they want and see where it gets us.

Dude, I sound like an old man. I might need some rest.

[LouieB]

 

We really should just give lefties everything they want and see where it gets us.

 

We keep giving the right wing all they want also. The problem is that we give everyone what everyone wants without a serious discussion of the consequences on either side. 

 

In communities where the military holds sway, a scaling back of the military will have drastic effects, in comunities where they rely on farm subsidies, that will have a drastic effect, in communities that need prisions for jobs, closing them will have drastic effects, and so on.  Everyone likes the government when it gives them what they want.  That's the way this shit works.  It has little to do with right or left.  It all has to do with what do we really need?  That some folks think we need basic healthcare for all. That seems like a radical idea to folks who don't think this, but to the rest of us it appears to be common sense.  It also appears to be common sense to support public education and basic human needs.

 

As I keep saying here, there are all kinds of government programs that can be cut or severelly cut back, but to those people who benefit from them, or even think they benefit from them, they don't want to give including letting the rich not pay higher taxes.  This is gonna hurt, but who is it going to hurt?

 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

The problem is that we give everyone what everyone wants without a serious discussion of the consequences on either side. 

 

QFT. Maybe the smartest thing said about politics on VC in a year.

[Vacant Horizon]

QFT. Maybe the smartest thing said about politics on VC in a year.

 

there is one group that will not get hurt no matter what happens, the rich.  i am utterly sickened by this current conversation about taxing the taxed out middle class and cutting the pittance we give to old folks and those with disabilities.  the worst part is that lots of people have been persuaded to defend the rich and blame all their problems on the 'entitled'.  however, it's not surprising.  we go to war to make peace, so everything's backward.  

 

something will happen.  things might get a bit worse, but not much.  entitlements are a revolution insurance policy for the powers that be.

[Tweedling]

 entitlements are a revolution insurance policy for the powers that be.

That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate?

[Tweedling]

Anyone see the classy people who opposed the new "right to work" law with violence.

[LouieB]

QFT. Maybe the smartest thing said about politics on VC in a year.

I dunno...seems like a no brainer. 

 

At this point everyone is going to hurt some.  That includes the freaking military and the rich.  Clearly there willl be entitlement cuts, but those should not come without some amount of pain from the sectors of our society that seem to be doing pretty well.

 

(We have to stop being the police of the world, that's clear, at least to me.)

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

.

 

(We have to stop being the police of the world, that's clear, at least to me.)

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Saw this on Maddow last night.  

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/13/15876038-republicans-reap-the-fruits-of-redistricting?lite

 

The charts show how states could overwhelmingly vote for Obama and yet have a GOP controlled legislature and a greater number of GOP congress members.  

 

I think the redistricting process that occurs every 10 years is one of the worse processes in all of politics, it is truly a shame that the party in power uses this to consolidate power and sometime subvert the will of their own state.  The aforementioned Right to Work law (and its subsquent fallout and protests) in Michigan are a result of this gerrymandering.  Why the redistricting is done by a partisan legislature is really beyond me.  This is one of the great problems that is contributing to our deep political divide.  

[ih8music]

2 reasons why I love CA. 1) the two top vote-getters in the primary (regardless of party) get to the election. 2) fuck me, I forgot.

 

Edit: now I remember... we now have a citizen panel drawing district lines. All of this should (hopefully) result in more moderate politicians. We'll see.

[KevinG]

2 reasons why I love CA. 1) the two top vote-getters in the primary (regardless of party) get to the election. 2) fuck me, I forgot.

 

Edit: now I remember... we now have a citizen panel drawing district lines. All of this should (hopefully) result in more moderate politicians. We'll see.

 

I would really be interested in hearing any views of why partisan drawing of district lines is a good thing.