FRAMESHOP

Fear and Anger in Michigan

As the economic crisis reaches the end of the early rounds, all eyes turn to Detroit--knocked to its knees by the credit crunch last November.  The news of the day: if GM wants more help getting back on its feet from Washington, there must be changes at the top.  Thus, 30-year car industry executive, Rick Wagoner, is stepping down. 

One question:  If asking Rick Wagoner to leave is good for GM---and by extension, good for the country--why is there so much fear in Gov. Granholm's (D-MI) voice? 

Why?  Fear and anger, that's why.  Fear and anger are rising in Michigan: Fear that things are about to get much, much worse than they already are; anger that the federal government is strong arming the Mitten State just a short while after opening up America's coffers to Wall Street with no strings attached.  New York gets what it wants, when it wants it from Washington, Michigan gets slapped in the face. The fat cats on Wall Street caused this problem, they sank the economy, and they got paid off by a robber-baron president as he scuttled out of office and tossed the keys to the new guy. Executives in Detroit get tarred and feathered and escorted to the door.

Fearful, angry arguments are never subtle, never accurate, but always hotter than molten steel.  Fear and anger reduces politics down to the simplest of all logic:  they did this to us, and they will pay for it.

Fear and anger are rising everywhere else, too, but in Michigan they are heating up at a pace that must have made a restful night's sleep a thing of the past for the beleaguered governor.   In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, the tremble in Jennifer Granholm's voice is apparent:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The governor is no doubt exhausted, but there is more than sleep in her voice. Granholm was not really speaking to Matt Lauer when she called Wagoner a 'sacrificial lamb.' She was speaking to the millions of Michiganders who woke up this morning fearful for the future of their families, and angry at Washington for pushing around a state that has fallen on hard times.

The Obama administration must think--really think--or the fear and anger could explode into something much hotter. 

We walked up to this ledge before, 75 years ago.

In Studs Terkel's prophetic masterpiece Hard Times, psychiatrist Dr. David J. Rossman remembered those days:

Big business in 1930 and later in '32 came hat in hand, begging Roosevelt.  They have never gotten over their humiliation, and they have never forgiven him for having the wits to do something about it

The "humiliation" of GM began long ago.  It had nothing to do with the Obama administration, everything to do with a unforgiving market that turned its nose at what GM had to offer after decades of gobbling it up.  When GM fell to its knees last November and came hat in hand to the Bush administration, the people of Michigan blame their humiliation on fickle consumers and on Washington.  With hat in hand yet again and Rick Wagoner cast aside, the anger is focusing more and more on Washington alone.

Fear and anger are rising in Michigan and everywhere else. This morning, there must be more than one governor worried that Michigan could be the place where flint finally meets steel.

In the 30s, we are told, people never let their anger overtake them. They blamed themselves more than they blamed others.  Can the same be said today with Rush Limbaugh's broadcast bandwidth and accusations far larger and more toxic than Father Coughlin's ever were?  Will anger subside again as it did in those hard times? 

In all likelihood, Jennifer Granholm does not think it will, which means Obama's auto industry plan is about far more than restructuring. The half-life of hope has come and gone in Michigan.  What the White House, GM and Chrysler do this week--and the next six weeks--could be the moment students study 100 years from now.  This was where the 2009 recovery worked or, god forbid, this is where it failed.

In other words: What's good for Michigan is good for the country.

AIG Counter-Party Payments Worse than Bonuses

For anyone listening to Edward Liddy's testimony, yesterday, the key statement of the hearings came at about 2:50pm. "It appears," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), "that AIG has become a conduit for counter-party transfers of taxpayer money."  Amidst all the anger over the $165 million in retention bonuses gifted to AIGs derivatives traders, Hensarling focused attention on the next AIG scandal:  counter-party payments. In all likelihood, the counter-party payments will make the retention bonuses look like loose change that fell between the couch cushions.

Unlike the word 'bonus,' however, which has a crystal clear meaning in everyone's mind and requires no explanation, the phrase 'counter-party payment' means nothing unless it is defined.  And that is a huge part of the problem:  AIG in-house traders--let's just call them "gamblers"--gambled away trillions in company equity and assets using financial gimmicks called credit default swaps--unimaginably risky get-rich stunts that they marketed to investors, to the U.S. government and even to their own bosses as 'products.'   When those AIG gamblers ended up on the losing end of all those gimmicks, having brought down the entire AIG corporation in the process, the result was a mountain of outstanding counter-party payments owed to other gamblers in other large corporations.  

Got that so far?  AIG gamblers sat down at a table with gamblers from other companies, they made bets, AIG lost, and so AIG owes the other gamblers more money than most people can fathom.

This is where the counter-party scandal at AIG really begins to take on monstrous proportions. 

If AIG had declared bankruptcy, a judge would have monitored all those counter-party payments, effectively telling all the other gamblers owed money by AIG to get in line, wait their turn, and be satisfied with whatever portion of payment the court allowed.  The judge would have also berated AIG and every other company involve for turning a publicly traded company into a casino without rules.   In monetary terms, a bankruptcy court would have forced the gamblers on the other side of the table from AIG to burden the share of the risk that they assumed when they walked up to AIGs credit default swap table at the casino and placed billion dollar bets, for example, on the U.S. housing market failing.   It would have been painful, but it would have been relatively fair.

But that is not what happened. 

Rather than allow AIG to fail, the Bush administration pumped more than $80 billion of our taxpayer dollars into AIG to allow the giant insurance-company-turned-big-stakes-casino to unload all its gambling debt.  What that meant in real terms was that billions of taxpayer dollars were used to settle those counter-party payments with those other gamblers. 

So, who got the money?  Today, AIG released the list of counter-party payments and--oh, my, dear, god.  When the key points of the AIG counter-parties list finally sink in to the American population, there is going to be a run on torches and pitchforks at local hardware stores.

According to the list from AIG's press release, many of the largest counter-party payments were paid to gamblers in France, Germany, and the UK. 

When AIG received U.S. taxpayer dollars to prevent them from going into bankruptcy, they put $6.9 billion in a brown paper bag and gave it to gamblers at Société Générale--in France.  Merci beaucoup!

When AIG received U.S. taxpayer dollars to prevent them from going into bankruptcy, they wrapped $2.8 billion in tin foil and gave it to gamblers at Deutsche Bank--in Germany.  Danke schön!

When AIG received U.S. taxpayer dollars to prevent them from going into bankruptcy, they put $2.5 billion in shoe boxes and gave it to UBS--in Switzerland. Merci vilmal!

Oh, but it gets worse.

Some of the biggest counter-party gambling debts U.S. taxpayers paid on behalf of AIG were to our very own Wall Street firms: $5.6 billion to Goldman Sachs and $3.1 billion to Merrill Lynch.

In other words, while American taxpayers are rightly up in arms about $165 million in bonus payments to a few compulsive gamblers at AIG, we have not even begun to get angry about the $27.1 billion we forked over in counter-party gambling debts to foreign firms and Wall Street companies engaged in the exact same game of credit default swap Russian roulette as AIG. 

The reason the AIG bailout was structured so that taxpayer dollars would go towards paying off counter-party gambling debts is complicated. Before AIG failed, Lehman Brothers was brought down by its credit default swap gamblers.  Rather than intervene to pay off Lehman Brothers counter-party debt, the Bush administration just let it collapse.  As a result, all credit in the world froze.  That was bad.  When AIG failed, the idea was: try for a soft-landing of the company to avoid another systemic collapse in the financial market (e.g., like a run on the banks).  Nobody knows for sure what that collapse would have been, but it would have been bad. 

So, instead of widespread panic and possibly a run on the banks when AIG collapsed, we ended up with truckloads of taxpayer cash being dumped into the coffers of compulsive gamblers in the U.S. and foreign companies--many of which will likely fail just like AIG.

Remember when President Obama told us that things were going to get worse before they got better?  This is it.

Tent Slums Springing Up in America

Concentrations of homeless people are nothing new in America, but a recent BBC report depicts a rising trend of shanty slums, such as a "city" of newly homeless people living in tents near the Ontario airport in Los Angeles.

If you recall your Steinbeck, the residents of the 20c Hoovervilles were largely tenant farmers thrown off their farms by the owners, who in turn tried mechanized farming to bring down costs and break even.  These displaced farmers migrated West where they became agricultural day laborers and settled into shanty camps.

The California tent slum depicted in the BBC report is quite different, because they are not migrant workers, so much as locals who have lost their homes.  It is hard to tell if the newly dispossessed are all the victims of the sub prime market.  More likely, the tent slum population is a mix of new and old homelessness--perhaps with a few migrant workers in the mix. 

(video credit:  BBC)

I do not know if there is a technical point at which a tent city becomes a slum--a boundary of some sort that gets crossed in terms of population ensity or length of time in existence or total acreage.  But the Los Angeles Times reports that the police are handing out armbands to make sure that only locals take up residence in the tent camp by the airport.  Non locals have to get out.  Passing  out wrist bands to make sure only locals get into the camp has to be crossing a boundary of some kind. And it is not a good one to cross.

Whatever the actual demographics, the images and the stories are heartbreaking.  If ever there was a reason to let go of market orthodoxy, and to re-embrace the American spirit of making things better by the mostpragmatic means possible--this is it. Make it work better, period. No more ideology; no more grand theories about freedom from government; just come together to help people before we lose a generation to this mounting economic tragedy.

Glenn Beck Recycles X-Files Plot to Spread Fear of Obama

FOX News personality, Glenn Beck, has been using his airtime to broadcast a right-wing conspiracy theory about the Obama administration setting up 'concentration camps,'part of a secret plot to establish totalitarian rule. Curiously, Beck's criticism of President Obama's economic policies seems to have been ripped directly from the plot of FOX TV's past hit series The X-Files (1993-2002) and the films based on the series (1998, 2008).

While Beck claims he is not 100% certain that the camps exist, he has proclaimed repeatedly that the Obama administration's economic policies are pushing the country into "totalitarianism' and that he "cannot debunk" the existence of the camps, which are supposedly being set up under the auspice of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), but which Beck claims will be used soon for mass imprisonment of American citizens with right-leaning political views. 

In a recent spot on FOX and friends, Beck claimed that he had conducted "research on" the so called  concentration camps being built by the Obama WH as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America and the he could not "debunk them."   According to Beck, "If you ave any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out.  There is something happening in our country and it ain't good."

(Glenn Beck on Fox News)

Beck's conspiracy theory appears to be lifted directly from FOX Searchlight's 1998 movie The X-Files. In the film, a character named Alvin Kurtzweil (Martin Landau), warns FBI agent Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) about plans by FEMA to manufacture a federal emergency as a pretext for extending martial law, mass imprisonment, and totalitarian rule, thereby allowing a group of interplanetary aliens to take over the world.

(The X-Files Movie from 1998)

Rumors that FEMA has set up 'concentration camps' as part of a plot to take over America and the world flourished after the X-Files film, died down, and then resurfaced as the video site YouTube became more popular in 2006.

One video expounding on the X-Files theory of FEMA concentration camps, which was posted to YouTube in mid-2006, has been watched almost one million times. The theory Glenn Beck is pushing is a version of the X-Files plot adapted to support Beck's argument against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed recently by the Obama administration.

So far, no major news network has pointed out Beck's appropriation of the X-Files plot or his obvious use of them to spread fear of a totalitarian conspiracy under the guise of a critiquing President Obama's economic policies.

Calling Jon Stewart: Get Savage!

Media Matters has a clip up of Michael Savage comparing Obama to the Nazis--saying that green workers who will be trained to weatherize windows (e.g.) will be equivalent to a 'private army' and no different than Hitler's brown shirts. He also calls Van Jones a 'street thug'--that's Van Jones who says that we should train people to weatherize windows, retrofit buildings, and put up solar panels as part of a broader plan to revive the economy and create a sustainable future.

Nazi brown shirts broke windows and beat up people.

Obama's green labor force will repair windows and lower our energy use.

It's really hard to tell the two apart--if you are Michael Savage.

Listen to the clip and as you do: think about how to get Jon Stewart to take down Michael Savage.

(clip courtesy of Media Matters)

So here is the scenario that Savage says we should be aware of:

1. Obama hires Van Jones as the Green Czar (true)

2. The Green Czar trains thousands of workers to weatherize windows (true)

3. Obama distributes guns to the green workers (wait a sec...say what?)

4. Obama gives green workers with guns authority over local police (deep breath, hold it in...man, this dope is strong)

5. America is Nazi Germany (Dude! I could KILL a plate of cookies right now!)

Seriously, folks, can you smell the LSD-spiked pot smoke wafting through the windows as you listen to Savage ramble on about window repair workers turning into storm troopers?

What makes this all possible is the THC induced argument that Hitler's paramilitary force--who goosestepped through Germany, beat up dissenters, and broke store windows--are the exact same (THE EXACT SAME) as people trained to install weather stripping, triple-pane dormers, and spray insulation foam.

(pause. hit head against desk.)

Van Jones, we are told, is not really interested in weatherizing and employment and lowering energy use--despite writing. Silly, naive, you. Van Jones is a modern day Ernst Röhm whose real job will be intimidate and destroy anyone who disagrees with the Obama administration on anything.

It's all happening around you--can't you see it? Heat pumps and winter door molding is a slippery slope to concentration camps and crematoria.

The money quote from Savage:

"It seems that the Obama appointees actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did." - Michael Savage

So, there you have it. Obama and Hitler: same policies. Same exact policies. All our industry will be nationalized--seized. Roaming bands of paramilitary thugs everywhere.

All you have to believe to see this obvious, frightening truth is smoke pot laced with angel dust believe this sentence:

"What you don't know is that the environment is being used in this case by the Obama administration to gain control of the U.S. population." - Michael Savage

But now we know. And thank goodness for it.

Calling Jon Stewart
Now, I have been writing about violent right-wing media long enough to know what is happening in this Savage spiel, today, and also to understand what needs to be done about it (see, e.g., Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons Our Democracy).

Make no mistake about it: Savage is comparing Obama to Hitler in order normalize the idea that violence against the President and his policies are an acceptable form of political behavior. That is his point, and we should all be grateful to organizations like Media Matters for calling attention to it.

But here's the frustrating part: calling attention to Michael Savage's words is not enough to prevent them from doing damage. Something else has to be done.

In American politics, today, satire is the antidote to the violent political mindset of Michael Savage and his ilk. We do not want to block Michael Savage from speaking--we want to make sure that his words are received with the ridicule and derision they deserve when he does speak.

I know of no person better at that task, these days, than Jon Stewart. When he sets his mind to it, Jon Stewart has the platform and the team in place to thoroughly bind right-wing pundits in a crippling web of satire. The result: they collapse under the weight of their own ridiculousness.

So the solution here is not just to get outraged, but to mobilize our contacts and our collective voices so that we can LAUGH at Savage--which is what should be the case.

Barack Obama has more in common with a plate of schnitzel and potato salad than he does with Adolph Hitler. And to compare Van Jones to Ernst Röhm would not even make sense in the last throes of a PCP overdose.

Please, Jon Stewart: wrap Michael Savage in the satire he deserves--for everyone's sake.

Does Geithner Get What's Framing the Debate?

When Warren Buffet told CNBC that the economy had "fallen off a cliff," everybody in the world understood exactly what he meant: our problems our really big, we dropped into them really fast, and we are in them really, really deep.  Whether are not all three of those statements are factually accurate,  Buffet's comment defined the economic recovery debate in a way that enabled everyone to talk about it in simple, straightforward terms.  In other words:  Buffet gave the debate a new common sense frame.

If we backpedal for a moment, we might wonder what the common sense frame was for the economic recovery debate prior to Buffet's comment.   In theory, there was:  a three-legged stool. 

A what?

Since the Obama administration took office, and set themselves upon the never-before-attempted task of preventing an economic depression, they have been trying to frame the economic crisis using the image of a three-legged stool.  The economy will stand on its own again, they tell us, if three basic components are stood up again:  Jobs, Housing, and Banking.   That image of a three-legged stool has been used to explain the logic behind passing three large bills laying out a big sums of public finds:  The Recovery and Reinvestment Act, The Federal Fair Housing Act and "The Save The Banks Act" (actually name TBD).   The economic crisis is linked to three collapsed economic factors, Tim Geithner has been telling us.  We need to set up all three again to make sure that the economy has a solid foundation on which to rest. 

The problem with Geithner's 'stool' metaphor is that it may be accurate, but it has not been particularly effective at defining the terms of the debate.  With the exception of the occasional columnist's quip about the Geithner plan being 'wobbly,' after months of Geithner pushing the 'stool' idea, there are very few Americans talking about the economic recovery using 'three legs.'  It just has not taken hold.  By contrast, Buffet says 'fallen off a cliff' one time--and everybody grabs onto it instantly.

The fact is, some metaphors help the public understand what government is doing and some do not.  While the three-legged stool may be a good description to use in back-room meetings, briefing books, and closed-door updates to Congress, it is not a good metaphor for defining a national debate.  'Falling off a cliff,' by contrast, does seem like a strong metaphor.

Just the other day, I felt the metaphor of 'falling off the cliff' working in my brain.  Here is how it happened:

I had spent the afternoon reading articles on the banking crisis to get myself up to speed on the nature of the situation, focusing in particular on the problem that 'toxic assets' posed to the balance sheets of big banks.  After all that reading, I finally understood that a huge percentage of world cash and capital is tied up in few massive banks with worthless mortgage-backed assets sitting on their balance sheets. While the assets are worthless, they are still listed as being very valuable.  Soon--maybe next week, maybe next month--all those worthless bank assets are going to be converted to their real value.  When that happens, the world is going to experience a sudden drop in market capital about a million times worse than the Freefall roller coaster at Six Flags.  Markets will go down even further.  Unemployment will rise.  Even the safest of savings will lose value. That night, after reading about this, I had a fitful sleep.  Despite my effort to get the banking crisis out of my mind, I kept waking up with a panicky feeling, as if I had just--fallen off a cliff.

Now, I have fallen of the occasional stool as much as the next guy, but neither the image or the feeling of stools--three-legged or otherwise--seemed to be present in my conscious and unconscious thoughts about the economy.  When it came right down to it and the staggering magnitude of the economic crisis hit me in my gut, Geithner's three-legged stool was neither in or on my mind.

Like it or not, Geithner needs to acknowledge, as Warren Buffet has, that the dominant metaphor guiding the economic crisis debate is that of a giant cliff. And so the solution Geithner talks about needs to work within the logic that is already dictating the feelings and thinking of the American people.

If Geithner realizes how wide this 'cliff' logic has already spread, he will also understand that it places average Americans and big business executives in a slightly different place in the big story.

For example, when Warren Buffet says that the economy has 'fallen off the cliff,' he is talking about a massive crisis that  has already happened for business owners in terms of dried-up credit and consumer spending. Big business is already over the cliff.

For most average Americans, however, our lives have changed because of lost jobs and foreclosed homes, but we have not yet seen our savings evaporate.  The fact that the banks have not yet been forced to deal with the toxic assets on their balance sheets means that average Americans are looking at the steep ledge and are worried that they soon might be pushed over, but have not yet fallen off the cliff.   Average Americans are having nightmares about falling of the cliff soon, whereas business owners are feeling what it is like to land at the bottom.

What this means for Geithner's choice of language becomes clear once we accept the 'cliff' is the guiding metaphor for the debate. 

First, Geithner needs to explain how his plan will get business owners back up to the surface.  This means talking about 'climbing out' of their 'deep' problems.  If Geithner wants to talk about infrastructure investment, green jobs, and foreclosure relief that is fine, but he needs to talk about them in terms of helping business owners 'climb out' of deep ravine they landed in when they fell off the cliff.

Second, Geithner needs to explain how his plan will get average Americans over the gulch without falling off the cliff.  In other words, he needs to explain how the investment act, the housing act, and the banking act will build a 'bridge' strong enough and big enough to carry every American over the horrifying depths of the economic chasm.  'Three-legged' stools may be good metaphor for 'economic foundation,' but what worries Americans is how they are going to get past the cliff without 'falling in.'  And that means talking about building a bridge.

Now, under normal circumstances, it would be unfair to saddle the Treasury Secretary with the task of framing the economic debate, above and beyond the task of solving the economic crisis.  But these are not normal circumstances.   Hence, for Geithner to succeed he absolutely must take a more active role in communicating his message, and that means putting together a crack team of people in the Treasury Department tasked solely with helping him frame the debate.   This is not to suggest in any way that framing the debate take precedence over solving the banking crisis.  But with so many Americans waking  with nightmares of falling off a cliff, Geithner needs to play a much more proactive role at communicating his policies in a way that leads Americans past their fears and anxieties.  

Obama's 'Good Deal'

Amidst the hubbub of a diplomatic visit from Gordon Brown, President Obama focused the debate in an unexpected direction:  buying stocks.

Speaking to reporters, Obama dropped a resonant phrase into his comment about the state of the markets (emphasis added):

profit and earning ratios are -- are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it. (link)

FDR talked about a 'new' deal, and Obama talks about a 'good' deal?  Could be. What seems more likely, however, is that President Obama is being advised by his economic team that the stock market is reaching a bottom--that all the hot air and helium hype pumped into stock prices over the past five years has finally been released, such that the prices we see in the Dow Jones and the NASDAQ might actually reflect some vague image of U.S. business reality. 

Does this mean President Obama wants us to take the money we would spend on burgers and fries at Applebees® and use it to buy 25 shares of Ford instead?  Instead of buying a new Macintosh computer, should we buy 100 shares of Intel?

I suspect the President would consider that wise if we planned to hold Ford and Intel for three years or more.  But more than retail stock purchases, Obama's words seem to be aimed at large investment firms and fund managers sitting on the sidelines watching their mountains of cash collect dust.

The problem, in other words, is not the shortage of cash in the financial system, but a shortage of nerve. Investment bankers are all sitting on the side, shivering like kids with wet hair on a cold morning at summer camp. And so the President--for the first time--turned to them and shouted,"Jump in, ya' bunch of wimps!  It's much warmer in the pool than it is outside!"

There probably are not very many investment fund managers out there who make decisions based solely on the prodding of the President.  Which means we should not expect a sudden 500 point rise in the Dow by noon, today.  Still, even the most skittish of traders cannot help but wonder if Obama is speaking the truth.  The rest of this week will likely result in a fury of financial market analysis by investment firms across the country.  Millions of graphs and charts will be produced. By this time Monday, I suspect we will begin to see an uptick--not in the entire market, but in certain sectors where analysts have decided that valuations and market conditions are right for buying.

As for the political impact of Obama's 'good deal,' they could be devastating for the already tattered and capsized Republican Party.  If Obama's 'good deal' comment results in a 200 point rise in the market, we will likely see bitter infighting increase in the GOP ranks.  If the markets shoot up 500 points, primary challengers will suddenly come out of the woodwork.  If the markets rise 1000 points in a month, be prepared for talk of a new party that embodies the true principles of the Conservative movement.

Whatever happens, it should be interesting to watch and good overall for Americans struggling in the difficult economy.  It might even mean that retail investment opportunities are right around the corner for those with an eye towards the future and an interest in putting their money to work to help revive the economy.  

Limbaugh Revives Bush-Era 'Good vs. Evil' Rhetoric

After watching Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC, I wondered why not a single reporter in the broadcast media commented on how much he sounded like George W. Bush. 

Remember how our last president used to speak?  George W. Bush spent his entire presidency talking obsessively about the struggle between 'good and evil'--the main thrust in Rush Limbaugh televised speech. 

Is this news to anybody? Apparently, the broadcast media have forgotten--as if by evil potion--the hundreds of speeches Bush made where he reduced the complexity of all domestic and foreign policy down to 'good 'n evil,' not to mention all the Saturday Night Live and Daily Show segments that ridiculed him for doing it.

If you go over our Bush's transcripts, the word 'evil' is mentioned literally hundreds of times.  Over and over again, Bush talked about the struggle against evil, the ideology of evil, evil-doers, evil this, evil that.  In his very last speech to the nation, Bush said,"I've often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable.  But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise."  

That sounds so familiar.  Where have I heard that recently?  Oh, that's right.  I heard it in Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC:

Where is the compromise between good and evil?  Should Jesus have cut a different deal?  Serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges. If we're going to convince the minds and hearts of the American people that what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principles, because our principles are not present in what's happening here. So where the hell do we go to compromise what we believe in when our principles are not their principles, they're just the opposite of what's happening? (link)

Summing up:  Limbaugh advises his charges that they revive Bush's favorite rhetorical tactic. The Republican Party should not talk about policies or even address what Democrats or anyone else is actually doing.   Instead, says Rush, the GOP should drag the country--kicking and screaming if necessary)--back to the same, non-productive conversation about 'good and evil' that Bush forced on the American public for eight long and destructive years.

Fun for us!

So, when Democrats offer solutions to unemployment--Limbaugh advises Republicans to talk about 'good and evil.'

When Democrats propose ways to revive the banking industry--Limbaugh advises Republicans to talk about 'good and evil.'

When Democrats try to stop the spread of house foreclosures and keep families from going homeless--Limbaugh advises Republicans to talk about 'good and evil.'

When Democrats try to make affordable health care available to all--Limbaugh advises Republicans to talk about 'good and evil.'

No matter what the Democrats try, no matter what problem needs solving, no matter how many people depend on the solution--Limbaugh advises Republicans to talk about 'good and evil.'

Is Limbaugh the new leader of the Republican Party?  Not really.  Rush Limbaugh is still just a successful drive-time radio entertainer with an audience he maintains due to the staggering number of markets his show dominates.  In politics, Limbaugh is anything but a leader.  He is just trying to resurrect the approach Bush used to divide the country and win elections in 2000 and 2004.  And who can blame him?  When Bush used the 'good and evil' tactic, it was remarkably effective.

Truth be told, if all you want to do is win elections to elect Republicans who will pass laws filled with giveaway tax cuts for the people making more millions of dollars per year, Bush and Limbaugh's 'good and evil' approach is a good way to go.

On the other hand, if you want lead a productive national discussion about real solutions to real problems Americans face--unemployment, cost of eduction, health care, home foreclosure, banks collapsing--the whole 'good and evil' approach will not work.    Why?  Because Bush and Limbaugh's 'good and evil' approach to debate suffocates any pragmatic discussion that may be out there.  It is the poison pill that can bring any debate to its knees.

Here is a scenario, for example, that I have found myself in dozens of times over the past few months.  In a discussion about potentially crippling rates of national unemployment, I try to engage Republicans in a conversation about investing in shovel-ready public infrastructure and green energy projects to put people to work.  They respond, "Socialism is bad."  The conversation dies.

Here is another scenario similar to the first.  I try to talk to a Republican about improving America's health care system by pushing for a single-payer system or a combination of single-payer and private options that gives everybody coverage.  They respond, "Big government is bad, we'll end up with a system worse than the communists."   Converstion on health care:  RIP.

When I try to talk about reviving automotive industry, Republicans respond, "Unions are corrupt." Conversation, adieu.

When I try to talk about improving education, Republicans respond, "Teachers are elitists." Conversation, bye-bye, Birdie.

The sticking point in all these "quick death to conversation" scenarios is not that I disagree with Republicans on policies.  We  never even get to the policies. Following the lead of Bush, and now the advice of Limbaugh, these Republicans simply crash the conversation into the tree of 'good and evil' instead of actually stepping up to offer something pragmatic and useful. 

So, here we are in March of 2009--almost six months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers sent the world economy spiraling down into its worst crisis since the Great Depression--and the loudest Republican voice advises his party to avoid any pragmatic discussion in favor of reviving the conversation-killing tactics of George W. Bush.

Will it work?  Will a majority of the country follow Limbaugh back over the cliff and lose themselves in go-nowhere, do-nothing 'good and evil' banter? 

Not a chance.

Radio listeners may enjoy Limbaugh's one-liners, occasionally, but we are finished with the Bush Presidency 'good and evil is all we get to say' thing.   Americans are pragmatic people.  We have solutions to offer, ideas to debate, work to get started.    Plus, after listening to Bush and Limbaugh talk 'good and evil' for eight, long years, we have simply moved on.  We have turned our attention away from entertainment and towards finding ways to fix the problems we face right now: putting people back to work; ending the fear and greed that cripples our health care system; reviving American manufacturing with a new vision for the future.  

In light of those challenges and the millions of Americans ready and willing to get to work on them, following Limbaugh back into the dead-end zone of Bush-era 'good and evil' talk seems like a waste of time.

And we have wasted far to much time already.