Ta-Nehisi Coates shared this quote from Lee Atwater describing “the Southern Strategy” on his blog today. The quote was first published anonymously, then later attributed to [...]]]> Who, exactly, are these 47% Romney is referring to? There are two answers: the statistical 47% that lead to that oft-repeated soundbite, and the 47% Romney is actually referring to.

Ta-Nehisi Coates shared this quote from Lee Atwater describing “the Southern Strategy” on his blog today. The quote was first published anonymously, then later attributed to Atwater in the 1980s.  Three decades later, it still proves revelatory.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

This sort of cynical race-baiting is common to the party and the repercussions are still felt today, and will be for a long time.

The latest Romney controversy is a testament to that long, ugly history. It is a confirmation of what many suspected, which is that Romney is running for the elite. He has an exclusionary mindset that so many on the right prescribe to Obama, which by the way is almost as quixotic as hack conservative gadfly Dinesh D’Souza’s analysis of the President. He, and not the fictional Obama that birthers claim wasn’t even born in these United States, is the one who grew up in and continues to inhabit a world that is so alien from our own.

If he comes across as an awkward weirdo, it’s because as far as we’re concerned, he is. He can’t and won’t possess any empathy for the common working man, despite his claims to the contrary. He has absolutely no understanding of what struggle is. He doesn’t know what it’s like to operate without a familial safety net. His is a life of privilege, from beginning to end. That alone does not disqualify one from being connected to people in any meaningful way, but combined with his narrow and stilted world view, it’s resulted in what we saw in the video leaked by Mother Jones: a man who thinks nearly half the country is a drain and not worth his time and who, by the way, wants to run the most powerful country in the world.

The “47%,” by the way, comes from the percentage of the country that is alleged by pundits and talk radio douchebags to not pay any income taxes. Which on its surface is true, but duplicitous in its presentation. Those repeating the figure either don’t know or fail to disclose who the 47% really are. the fact that income tax is what’s taken out when you file your taxes between January and April. This is not to be confused with payroll taxes that come out of every single one of our paychecks. So if you’ve ever received a tax refund, you are or were at one time part of that 47%. 

Turns out I was misinformed, but the real explanation sent to me was even better:

Payroll taxes are things paid BY THE EMPLOYER every time they file a payroll, so their contributions to your social security, unemployment insurance, etc.

The withholdings that are taken out of our your paycheck every two weeks ARE income taxes . . . they are based on the amount of income that THE EMPLOYEE earns. Those withholdings are no different than what you pay when you file your taxes April 15. If you get a refund, it means you paid too much income tax in your withholdings, but it’s YOUR money that you are getting back (less the interest you would have earned if you didn’t put it in the Feds’ pockets). So you can pay a LOT of income tax every years without ever paying any of it with your filing . . . people who are self-employed (or partners in businesses that they own) are required to make quarterly income tax payments.

The 47% is actually based on the number who people who really do end up making no net payment over the course of a twelve-month period . . . they may have withholdings and then get a refund, or they may not have withholdings because they don’t earn paychecks. Many of them don’t pay because they don’t earn enough . . . but many MORE of them don’t pay because they earn A LOT, but are savvy enough to use various loopholes to get their taxable income down below the level where payment is not required. Romney himself is (or has been) likely one of the 47% for years.

But that’s not Romney’s 47%. Going back to Atwater, the 47% is a code word used by Romney and the other thirty out-of-touch, smarmy millionaires in that room for a very specific group.

Blacks.

Already there are those on the defensive reading this that, I’m sure, would insist that Romney was making a statement on socio-economic class. But any attempt to separate the racial implications and present it simply as class betrays, if not sincerity, a fundamental misunderstanding of race and racism in this country. Because even those poor white trash that we’re going to put in the 47% are n*****s in the eyes of these men. People like Romney may be able to create a rainbow coalition in their smug world view out of this parasitic 47%, but there is absolutely no mistaking what color the faces of the people are when he invokes the term “Middle Class” with such reverence and concern.

People are calling this a disaster for Romney. Yet a part of me, cynical as it may be, can’t help but not be surprised at all by this. It’s the sentiment his most vociferous supporters have been propounding over the last several months, and it’s the narrative they’ll continue with up to, including, and past this coming November’s election. Will it hurt Romney now that we’ve heard it coming straight out of his mouth? Perhaps, but were any of us that were affected by this statement actually considering voting for this awkward, privileged goof? Is there anyone, honestly, outraged by these comments that up until now thought this useless fucking haircut would be a good Commander-in-Chief? That he’d invite anything but ridicule and disaster upon us when put in a position to make decisions that affect the entire planet?

Bush, at least, came across (and still does) like he’s able to talk to a human being without playing a prank on him.

Joke’s on us.

C’mon, you knew this wouldn’t end well.

Mitt The Awkward Weirdo (I prefer this [...]]]> Mitt Romney, wh0 should really just stay the Hell away from talking to, at, or about brown people (especially the small ones – they clearly make him super uncomfortable), is at it again. This time, in Israel.

C’mon, you knew this wouldn’t end well.

Mitt The Awkward Weirdo (I prefer this to “Mitt the Twit” because I find it to be more accurate) told a group attending a breakfast fundraiser in Jerusalem that he believes culture to be a defining factor in determining prosperity. From the New York Times:

“As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” he said.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks “racist.”

I don’t know about racist, but he’s kinda fucking stupid if he actually thinks that the difference in GDP per capita between Israel and the occupied territories is due to Jewish culture rather than, you know, the total upheaval and displacement of the two peoples and resettlement that occurred throughout the second half of the twentieth century.

What’s worse is that he name-checked Jared Diamond and his book Guns, Germs, and Steel in the speech. He claims it “informed” his opinion on how nations acquire and maintain wealth and power, alongside David Landes’s The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, the latter of which argues (in a self-professed and boastfully Eurocentric manner) that the determinant factors are all cultural. I find it hard to reconcile how Romney could say Diamond’s work influenced his thinking considering the statement he made about culture defining economic potential. That’s an argument straight out of Landes, which specifically contradicts all other arguments and considerations, including the various factors laid out in Diamond’s book.

But I’m probably giving this too much thought.

Anyway, it reminded me of this old skit from Mr. Show, which is right on the money with its criticism of the idea that more money means someone/thing is better than someone/thing else. It’s complete bullshit and predominantly the worldview of idiots and sociopaths.

For what it’s worth, he did much better the first time he ran for President:

I expect a lot of debate over whether this guy is crazy or simply playing it. My vote is for the latter. He’s too concise, specific, and absolutely dead on with his use of absurdity as satire for this to be crazy. Particularly the bit about ponies, which is actually almost verbatim the talking [...]]]>

I expect a lot of debate over whether this guy is crazy or simply playing it. My vote is for the latter. He’s too concise, specific, and absolutely dead on with his use of absurdity as satire for this to be crazy. Particularly the bit about ponies, which is actually almost verbatim the talking points heard for other programs pushed by politicians with a close association with certain special interests.

Well, okay, that might be true and he might still be a little crazy. But whether on purpose or accidental, it’s some of the most brilliant political satire I’ve seen.

NOTE: Randall Terry, seen at the end of the video, disowned his own son for being homosexual.

Watch the video in full. The whole thing is gold.

The fact is if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple – food stamps versus paychecks. Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the [...]]]>

"You're coming with me."

Oh, Newt…

The fact is if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple – food stamps versus paychecks. Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history.

Now there’s no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks, you wouldn’t end up with a majority saying they’d rather have a paycheck.

And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new social security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.

- Newt Gingrich, 1/5/2012

The arrogance in deigning tell the NAACP that black people should ask for jobs instead of food stamps is almost as astounding as the ignorance and borderline bigotry in the statement. Excessive hubris is never a more dangerous or reprehensible character trait than when it’s combined with (and exacerbated by) outright stupidity.

As I’ve pointed out before, Gingrich is actually kind of an idiot and a hypocrite. The dirty little secret of academia is that a PhD in any given field does not guarantee a person is enlightened, informed, or even intelligent. It does mean that s/he has put in a lot of hard work to achieve it, but it does not alone qualify someone as an intellectual. On a purely anecdotal note, I’m happy to tell you about PhDs I know that actually believe 9/11 was an inside job, and their degrees are rooted in modern concepts and events rather than Medieval European History.

Besides the racist tone of the statement, we also need to move discussion of economics and the economy past the level of President by first acknowledging that the effects of the mortgage crisis and collapse that occurred in 2008 (before Obama took office) was and is going to have residual repercussions that will be felt for years. People have a misconception of the economy as a wild beast whose kicks and bucks you feel immediately; a view that is unfortunately encouraged by politicians and partisan hacks. Economies, nationally and globally, are more like a large body of water. Contaminants take time to spread, and while some effects can be seen immediately, others don’t become readily apparent until some time later.

It is helpful to keep this in mind because while Obama should be taken to task for some of the policies and inactions of his first term, what’s occurring now is actually the result of literally decades of missteps, debt mismanagement, and oversights and lack of foresight in regulation of certain financial market sectors.

It is also important to understand that this current economic state is global. Though we are reared to think of ourselves as the center of the world, the effects of the crisis are far reaching and its roots are not only laid domestically. Just look at what’s happening in Europe. Even China is having some severe economic difficulties, though because of the nature of their country’s politics and notorious obscurity of their domestic issues we only have a vague concept of its depth.

And so, in short, there are four things that we can learn from Newt Gingrich, Goofus and Gallant style, with Newt as the former:

1. It’s not okay to portray blacks as being eager and willing to accept food stamps rather than paychecks.
2. The domestic economy is a bit more complicated than simply who happens to be in the White House at any given time.
3. The cause and effects are far-reaching.
4. Newt Gingrich is no intellectual.

“But resolutions are an empty gesture meant for glad-handing in an echo chamber. Real people who want to change don’t wait for blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah.”

– Miserable Fuck on the [...]]]> Oh my God, you guys, 2011 is almost over and I have RESOLUTIONS!

“But resolutions are an empty gesture meant for glad-handing in an echo chamber. Real people who want to change don’t wait for blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah.”

– Miserable Fuck on the Internet

MFI: Shut up already. Nobody’s convinced or impressed with your attempt to appear superior.

Anyways, HERE GOES:

1. Get more stand-up gigs in 2012. Specifically, get down to NYC. Because folks, real talk: it ain’t gonna happen in the Capital Region, dig? I had this conversation with a comic who was complaining about how you can’t make a living around here. Well, right. You have to go to NYC, LA, and/or travel.
2. Fight in an amateur kickboxing bout. This MIGHT happen in February.
3. Get down to NYC more often. Obviously I need to do this for exposure and work in front of real crowds, but more than that, I need to see my little nephew Caden and his mom & dad (my brother and sister-in-law) more often, along with BFFs Brian and Marla. We did not see nearly enough of each other in 2011.
4. Run in a 10k race.
5. Go on more dates. Real ones.
6. Learn some basic Jiu-Jitsu.
7. Finish a novel.
8. Write a letter to Marc Maron.
9. See more concerts.
10. Lose the love handles. 

Annnnnnnd scene. So long, 2011, you pepper-spraying topsy-turvy false-confidence-instilling son of a bitch.

Gingrich has been positioned as a “thinking man’s candidate” amidst a field consisting of bigots, caricatures, and charlatans [...]]]> Let’s talk about Newt Gingrich, the alleged intellectual who has inconceivably risen towards to top of the field for the GOP nomination in 2012, despite being about twenty years past his expiration date for relevance and integrity.

Gingrich has been positioned as a “thinking man’s candidate” amidst a field consisting of bigots, caricatures, and charlatans that have run themselves off a cliff in pursuit of the highest office in the land. Even Herman Cain and Rick Perry, who had appeared to be taken seriously for a short stretch, have been plagued with concerns raised through media vetting that have been exponentially exacerbated by their inability to say something that doesn’t make any given situation worse for them.

And so now we find ourselves with, realistically, a two-man race: Romney, who faces very real challenges as a compromising official facing a Christian right that is aggressively apprehensive towards anyone of Mormon faith, and Newt Gingrich, the intellectual who is nothing of the sort.

Where do we even begin to address this farce?

For starters there was Gingrich’s comment to The National Review that Obama possessed a Kenyan, anti-colonial world view that served as a predictive model for his behavior. If you’re wondering what he means, you’re not the only one. Supposedly Obama developed that Kenyan anti-colonial sensibility sometime during the age of six to ten in…Indonesia. Or perhaps during the rest of his childhood, which was spent in Hawaii before leaving for Los Angeles after High School to pursue his education. Perhaps he got it from his absentee and estranged father? Or maybe Newt is just an overtly racist buffoon. Only he knows the real answer, and the rest of us can only speculate.

Throughout his career, Gingrich has cultivated an image of a conservative intellectual that, like any other PR concoction, does not hold up to scrutiny.

This tone is in keeping with his rhetoric, which one must not mistake for intellect or discourse. It is, rather, self-serving blustery bile that eschews hate and vitriol to reinforce an ignorant electorate rather than encourage debate and change. He himself has gone on record saying that the quest to win elections is, for all intents and purposes, a civil war war, giving it the same breadth and earnestness as a bloody conflict but with ballots in place of bullets.

No man who possesses this attitude about politics and society while labeling any and all opposition as fascist, Soviet, or both, should be bestowed the honor of being an intellectual. A strategist, maybe. A hack, definitely. But not an intellectual.

Even if we were to discount these statements as the exaggerations of a paid consultant and occasional pundit, there’s still the issue of his role in fanning the flames of ignorance and, at times, bigotry in recent social and political debates.

When Prop 8 in California was proposed to eliminate same-sex marriage, a coalition of anti-gay extremists spread a wealth of disinformation and lobbied successfully to pass a measure in a mostly democratic state that eliminated civil rights and spread shame throughout this country. Ever the opportunist, Gingrich supported the ban with numerous appearances throughout radio and television. He even went so far to say the following on Fox’s O’Reilly Factor:

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.”

Because rather than being advocates for equality, or even at a more base level concerned with the fact that a law was being passed in 2011 that actually revoked civil rights rather than strengthening them, opponents of the measure were instead trying to stifle the rights of others by restricting their right to say others have no rights. Got that? If not, don’t worry, you’re just not an intellectual.

Gingrich has consistently praised and supported Tea Party candidates and now finds himself looking like a shining light in a field of hopeless TP buffoons.

Then there was the infamous dust-up over the Ground Zero Mosque, which was neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero (two blocks away). For all his faults, I at least understood where Rudolph Giuliani (among others) was coming from. September 11th left a permanent scar on the face of New Yorkers, and anybody who was there that day is going to react first and foremost with emotion when something comes forth that may re-open that wound or at the very least pick at its scabs. I disagreed, and thought that Giuliani and others were getting caught up in the political opportunism of those that were eager to placate a hysterical and racist base. Among those was, once again, our friend the intellectual. His argument was that there should be no Mosque near Ground Zero because of the lack of religious freedoms in other countries.

No, really:

There shouldn’t be a mosque anywhere in the general vicinity of Ground Zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed “Cordoba House” overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

America should not, then, strive to be better than other citizens of the world. We should not lead the charge for freedom and tolerance. Rather, stupid is as stupid does, and if there’s no church in Saudi Arabia then there’s no Mosque in Manhattan. Even though, again, this wasn’t a Mosque and this is actually America. It is also worth noting that the purpose of calling the religious interfaith portion of the project “Cordoba House” (not the name of the building itself as was implied by many) was in reference to the fact that there WERE synagogues and Christian churches in the Muslim capital after the conquest. It was meant to be symbolic of the exact kind of interfaith exchange that Gingrich thinks we should restrict for the sake of sentimentality and the realities of an unrelated foreign government. And if the intellectual thinks that this is somehow offensive simply because it also invokes a Muslim empire from hundreds of years ago, then he should probably get to work on ridding us of all those odes and references throughout our culture to conquests and practices of the Roman and British empires.

Then there’s the hot button issue of health care. When “Obamacare” was in debate, Gingrich strongly supported and repeated the astoundingly ignorant (and boastfully reckless) “death panel” claim made by Sarah Palin. Palin’s imaginary scenario was actually co-opted from a practice at Gundersen Lutheran Hospital in La Crosse, Wisconsin, whose end of life care brought forth not only discussion on how hospitals handle the dying but also saved it millions in costs. As such, it actually drew praise from both those who support forward-thinking ideas about dignity in dying and fiscal Conservatives, one of whom said that if all hospitals were to apply Gundersen’s approach it would save Medicare more than $33 million a year.

By the way, that fiscal conservative? Newt Gingrich.

I am not naive enough to think that a man who is running for an elected office can be realistically expected to be one hundred percent honest, forthright, and everything he claims to be. Far from it. I think it is a self-defeating cynicism, and I strive for better, but I would not kid myself by saying Gingrich is the sole offender of these crimes against intellect and national discourse.

It’s just that the best that could be said is that he’s the worst of the best of them, and there has been absolutely nothing in his career to suggest that he should be seen as an intellectual or even a thinker. He is an opportunist, and he is ambitious. And he has a PhD in Medieval history. But even that, as has been shown, is something that he knowingly misconstrues for votes. Or, perhaps more apt, for dollars at the expense of sense.