Associated Press
Romney's magic act in Iowa yesterday.
Mitt Romney delivered a curious speech in Iowa yesterday, presenting his thoughts on the budget deficit, the debt and debt reduction, which is worth reading if you missed it. We often talk about the problem of the left and right working from entirely different sets of facts, and how the discourse breaks down when there's no shared foundation of reality, and the Republican's remarks offered a timely peek into an alternate reality where facts have no meaning.
Even the topic itself is a strange choice for Romney. If the former governor is elected, he'll inherit a $1 trillion deficit and a $15 debt, which he'll respond to by approving massive new tax cuts and increasing Pentagon spending. How will he pay for this? No one has the foggiest idea.
In other words, the guy who intends to add trillions to the debt gave a speech yesterday on the dangers of adding trillions to the debt.
More importantly, though, Romney presented a vision of the last few years that bears absolutely no resemblance to reality at any level. Jon Chait had a good piece on the remarks.
Mitt Romney delivered a speech today about the budget deficit. It’s hard to wrap your arms around Romney’s argument, because it’s an amalgamation of free-floating conservative rage and anxiety, completely untethered to any facts, as agreed upon by the relevant experts.
In the real world, the following things are true: The budget deficit was projected to top $1 trillion even before President Obama took office, and that was when forecasters were still radically underestimating the depth of the 2008 crash. Obama did propose temporary deficit-increasing measures, an economic approach endorsed in its general contours, if not its particulars, by Romney’s economists. These measures contributed a relatively small proportion to the deficit, and their effect is short-lived. Obama instead focused on longer-term measures to reduce the deficit, including comprehensive health-care reform projected to reduce deficits by a trillion dollars in its second decade. Obama put forward a budget plan that would stabilize the debt as a percentage of the economy. Obama has hoped to achieve deeper long-term deficit reduction by striking bipartisan deals with Congress, and he has tried to achieve this goal by openly endorsing a bipartisan deficit plan in the Senate and privately agreeing to a more conservative plan with John Boehner, both of which were killed by Republican opposition to any higher revenue.
The story told by Romney is one in which all of these things are either untrue or could not possibly be true.
I don't think Mitt Romney is stupid. I do think Romney is operating from the assumption that voters are stupid.
In Romney's speech, the deficit is responsible for a tepid economic recovery. That doesn't make any sense -- and I suspect the former governor knows that -- but he's counting on you not knowing the difference. What's more, he's avoiding interviews with journalists who might ask him to explain why on earth such arguments should be taken seriously.
In Romney's speech, the deficit can be dramatically reduced magically, even while cutting taxes on the wealthy and increasing spending on defense. How? Apparently, we're not supposed to ask.
In Romney's speech, "spending" has created a "financial crisis" (that's gibberish). In Romney's speech, the size of government has exploded to new heights (the opposite is true). In Romney's speech, the deficit is growing (it's actually shrinking). In Romney's speech, President Obama doesn't care about fiscal responsibility (Obama offered Republicans an overly-generous $4 trillion debt-reduction package, which the GOP rejected). In Romney's speech, Bush-era policies have absolutely nothing to do with Obama-era deficits (ahem).
In Romney's speech, everything we know about the Recovery Act should be replaced with talking points that don't make sense.
Watching the Republican's remarks, I was annoyed by the breathtaking dishonesty, but I was also struck by something that seemed rather new to me: Romney's immaturity. His arguments weren't just wrong; they were silly. If the political discourse were in any way grounded in fact, this was the kind of speech that would laugh Romney off the national stage, with sensible people agreeing that the guy just isn't ready for the big kids' table. Grown-ups don't feel the need to create fantasy lands where their wishes are true.
The speech seemed like it had been written by a high-school student who's preoccupied with Rush Limbaugh's radio show and assorted right-wing Twitter feeds. I couldn't take Romney seriously yesterday because Romney no longer cares enough to take himself seriously.
We got a peek into an alternate reality yesterday, and it appears that Romney Land is a deeply foolish place.
Leave a Comment:
"Romney is operating from the assumption that voters are stupid."
Stupid is as stupid does. Like attracts like. Besides, he ain't black.
What is the point of this diatribe Benen?
Does not everyone (who cares for the truth) know that Mittens is running for president of the 1/10 of 1%ers?
Does not everyone (who cares for the truth) know that Mittens is a pathological liar?
Does not everyone know that with President Mittens, the Pledge of Allegiance will be changed to "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States of AmeriKa, one nation under a Mormon God, with liberty and justice for all who can afford to buy them."
With the exception of the Mormon god, isn't that the tealiban pledge now?
S.O.V. - Even if everyone who cares for the truth did know that Mitt Romney is a chronic liar who wants to be President 1% (and I would add that many people who care for the truth may not find it as readily available as it should be), those people by themselves are not enough to out-vote the utter gob$#!tes who are in thrall to the Romney/Fox News brand of tribal pandering. So between now and November, the many many people who really don't pay any attention, whether they truly care for the truth or not, need to be hit over the head with this stuff. Repeatedly. God knows summer is coming and a something like a shark attack or celebrity drug binge will take the country's eyes off the ball for precious weeks, and we just can't afford that.
SOV, you forgot the line "and to the Republican, who misunderstands..."
I think a telling pair of questions to ask Romney (and some other conservatives who talk about taking us back to some previous ideal world) are:
1) By date, when was the last time when things were right?
2) By date, when did you stop believing in Santa Claus?
My theory is that the answer to #1 will yield a date earlier than the answer to #2.
The real problem is that nobody who isn't already written off as "shrill" or as a committed lefty is going to call Romney out on this. Tom Friedman and David Brooks won't say a word, nor will Fred Hiatt or Ruth Marcus or Robert J. Samuelson.
Ornstein and Mann might say something, but they've just been kicked out of the Village for the sin of having called BS on Both Sides Do It.
American voters aren't dumb, but most of them don't have the time or interest to figure everything out from first principles, and count on the media to help them make sense of the world. And the media - not just Fox, but the Washington Post and the New York Times, and ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and NPR - are doing their level best to confuse the electorate.
While I will agree with you second premise that American voters don't always have the time to "figure everything out", I'm going to challenge you on "American voters aren't dumb". While most of the major corporate media outlets both print & television don't do as well as they should in "informing their viewers" "studies" have shown that the GOTP/FAUX NOISE crowd are shockingly uninformed. Just look at the sheeple that showed up for the GOP "debates" - the cheered for: an uninsured sick person, booed a gay soldier, and booed a moderator that asked an "unfair question" - you are being far too generous in saying that they aren't DUMB, frankly I've come to believe that these people have become psychotic in their attempt to "get the black guy out of office"!
I'm also not sure why Steve is scratching his head - Mittens will say whatever it is that he has to say to these people to ensure that they come out and vote for him, period. And the sheeple will not question because: 1) they probably don't understand what he's talking about, but don't want to ask what he really means, and 2) they lost the ability to "remember past last week", plus they want the "black guy outta their White House.
Me? I'd LOVE a $15 debt. :)
I can help you!
Contact me privately, and I'll give you $15 of advice, and pow, you'll have $15 of debt. Far too low for me to call any agencies to collect, but just high enough for me not to forget about it entirely.
What about a $15 dollar bet. The advocates for violent movies will start endorsing Romney. Arnold, I think Chuck Norris already has. Maybe Stallone. Possibly Claude Van Damn. Who knows? Ted has his hunting attire all ready to go. And then there's Elmer Fudd. Oh, the list goes on. I just hope Braveheart gets his chit together.
Chris Mooney's book "The Republican Brain; The science behind why they deny science" is absolutely prophetic here.
Mitt Romney's "remarks offered a timely peek into an alternate reality where facts have no meaning."
Facts have no meaning for current conservatives because there are *real* differences between liberal brains and conservative brains. While liberals and are entirely immune it is conservatives by far who engage in motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias etc.
Conservatives live in a fantasy world.
They are very shallow, narrow thinkers who use the Constitution and the Bible as a weapon. The only problem is they do not know how to interpret either. History has not taught them anything. They never learn from their mistakes, because they are incapable of learning. They have a one track mind and at the end of the tunnel they do not see a bright white light they see a gold coin. Unbeknowest to them that gold coin is worth 0 and it is worth even less where I intend to go.
Mitt "With the help of my Bush advisers, we will tackle this debt and cut its hair."
Steve, you seem to have a hard time understanding just how un-thinking and juvenile voters are. McCain/Palin almost won. Bush won -- twice.
I don't doubt R-Money is fundamentally juvenile. So was Bush. I think it will emerge that R-Money is also a compulsive liar, reaching for the crowd-pleasing fib when the truth would do just as well. But so what. This guy is running for the Presidency of the United States, not the Presidency of the Grad Student Club.
You wanna go broke? Bet in favor of the common sense and decency of the American electorate once they're subjected to a billion dollars of GOP advertising.
No wonder my Dad called it an idiot box. Channel 12 could schedule some past Superbowl games to divert the attention or reruns of Olympics, I'm sure they could come up with some interesting shows aimed to satisfy their audience. I will even overlook violence on TV this time if it meant distracting some people.
The plan is: Just say it often enough and they will all believe you. After designing your own reality, you can make that the reality of the voters simply by stating it often enough. Of course, if anyone has the audacity to challenge your reality, that's just partisan politics, especially when a journalist does it.
"Romney is operating from the assumption that voters are stupid." And he is right to do so, since anyone who votes for him is about as dumb as a box of rocks.
I think the real question Mr Benen and some left media might be getting at is HOW MUCH OF THE MSM ARE GOING TO ALLOW THIS BLATANT GOP DISHONESTY? As LOW TECH CYCLIST is pointing out ..
Sorry to say , most media figures are window dressing unfortunately , but considering the disasters that befell america by not calling these people out the last 10 years , imo we are on the cliff edge of having a actual free press , or a government , that actually works , and the gop with romney are going to be the ones that will destroy what's left of msm and CAMPAIGN integrity
Mr Benen just took romeys speech apart in about 1 paragraph , if the press allow this incompetence to go forward , there is no hope for an america based in logic and truth , as long as NO ONE calls the gop on this , they will just keep doubling down , and the result will be bush part 3 , maybe not in 2012 , but some where down the line
And yes the gop learned from palin , just do not give interviews to real reporters , they can just go on ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT and sell this crap...What will the msm say to themselves then (lol?) ?
Very true. Politicians lie. We all know that. But where's the media at in presenting the basic understanding of truth to the American people. You know, the truth that Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit, two ongoing wars that no one had raised a penny to pay for, and that not one single bill ever signed by Bush was ever paid for either. Those are facts. Not a debatable media theory.
This could prove to be MSM's time in the sun. What better or more worthy of a cause, that is if they truly believe in progressing. There are plenty of other things to do out there that are noble. They have provided us with a great service. The answer is whether they will continue to do this or buckle down to conformity. We have already traveled down the road of conformity, and I, I traveled down the road less traveled upon. What do you do when there is a fork in the road? You pick it up and start eating.
Here's something interesting to note. Michael Lindon had a post up at Think Progress today that shows the Obama administration has shrunk spending, cut taxes and lowered the deficit. Quite the opposite of what the Republican narrative is trying to portray.
Just for comparison, I did the same for Bush's first three years in office. As those of us in the Reality Based Community might guess, Bush increased spending, cut taxes and created a huge budget deficit after inheriting a huge surplus.
Here's the comparison. I threw the chart together fast so please double check numbers if need be.
Consider this statement in Romney's speech: "When you add up HIS POLICIES, this President has increased the national debt by five trillion dollars."
Here's all you need to know about this statement:
- http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
- http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
- http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/478368/478368/
Summary:
- Bush started out with a surplus, turned that into massive deficits with his policies, and the added a massive amount of debt which are THE RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES
- Debt occurring during Obama's Presidency are THE RESULT OF BUSH POLICIES and the worst financial crisis in 80 years.
But the incompetent Glenn Kessler -- Washington Post fact checker -- gave that (1) Pinochhio (out of a possible 4).
Also, consider this statement that Kessler made in his argument: "First of all, Obama has failed to convince Congress to enact some of his proposed policies — such as higher taxes on the wealthy — that likely would have reduced the deficit and thus kept the debt growing more slowly."
Seriously?!?! He made that statement!!! How brainless do you have to be to be someone whose job it is to observe Washington politics and make that statement.
KESSLER IS THE FACT CHECKER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST!!
This country is going down.
The Republicans are tying Obama to the deficit so they can assign him the blame despite the facts to the contrary. However, Obama can sort out the deficit spending that is tied to the two wars and tax cuts that Bush created. But that makes little or no difference to the less sophisticated voters. What Republicans are trying to do is shift the political conversation to the deficit because they don't want to talk about income and tax inequality. The second reason for focusing on the deficit is because it is a backhand way of discussing more tax cuts and domestic spending cuts. Obama should keep on message about the fairness issue and let Dems craft a budget that ends the Bush tax cuts, corporate subsidies and ends tax inequality through the Buffet rule. That will show Dems are serious about reducing the deficit, but not on the backs of the poor and middle class. Republicans will have to defend their cuts in domestic spending and new tax cuts if Dems stick to the script. That puts Republicans in opposition to public opinion on how to reduce the deficit and keeping fairness as the main campaign issue.
Cardinals Rule!!!!
@Mike P - The problem that Obama has is he can not make a clear distinction between his policies and Bush's policies. If he makes the argument about the wars, the counter argument is that he increased the troop levels in Afghanistan - thus he owns some of the debt from that war. If he makes the argument about the tax cuts, he signed them into law for a two year extension - thus validating the need for them.
By Obama trying to play the middle of the field, and court bi-partisanship for his entire term, he has left himself little distinction from Romney on most policy issues. This is why he is trying to attack the character of Romney, because his policies haven't really been that much different than Bush's (on economics, social issues are a completely different ball game).
I don't think Obama had much choice on the tax cuts renewal. But he does have a choice this time. Dems need to stick to the fairness issue and not the deficit. His current bipartisan talks are an effort to show voters he tried to get an agreement. If Republicans do not agree to a bipartisan plan, then they are at risk with the Ryan budget. It did not fly well in the conservative district in NY and it is not going to fly in a lot of districts, conservative and liberal. The second problem is that without an agreement both parties run the risk that they will be in a weaker position after the election. Most likely it will be the Republicans who will lose seats in the House and probably control. The Senate and WH are too close to call. But Republicans and the TP are more intent on making political points rather than an agreement and that may be fatal. The Dems have no incentive for an agreement if Republicans lose the WH and are going to lose a lot of seats in Congress. The closer we get to elections the harder it will be to strike a deal. Hence, an agreement now works to everyone's advantage. Gambling on the elections is not a good strategy because like any gambling, you can lose.
There is no need to be surprised by Romney's "breath-taking dishonesty." Below is the op-ed "Capitalists and Other Psychopaths" from last Sunday's New York Times. Click the urls below it to see the studies it talks about regarding Wall Street and psychopathology.
By WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ
THERE is an ongoing debate in this country about the rich: who they are, what their social role may be, whether they are good or bad. Well, consider the following. A recent study found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,” exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an “unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.” (The proportion at large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.
The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form, and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior. This should hardly be news. The English writer Bernard Mandeville asserted as much nearly three centuries ago in a satirical-poem-cum-philosophical-treatise called “The Fable of the Bees.”
“Private Vices, Publick Benefits” read the book’s subtitle. A Machiavelli of the economic realm — a man who showed us as we are, not as we like to think we are — Mandeville argued that commercial society creates prosperity by harnessing our natural impulses: fraud, luxury and pride. By “pride” Mandeville meant vanity; by “luxury” he meant the desire for sensuous indulgence. These create demand, as every ad man knows. On the supply side, as we’d say, was fraud: “All Trades and Places knew some Cheat, / No Calling was without Deceit.”
In other words, Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc., etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal — just open up the business section on an average day. Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.
I always found the notion of a business school amusing. What kinds of courses do they offer? Robbing Widows and Orphans? Grinding the Faces of the Poor? Having It Both Ways? Feeding at the Public Trough? There was a documentary several years ago called “The Corporation” that accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths: indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to their own interests.
There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about “job creators,” a phrase begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.
First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless.
Also, entrepreneurs and the rich are different and only partly overlapping categories. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurs; they are executives of established corporations, institutional managers of other kinds, the wealthiest doctors and lawyers, the most successful entertainers and athletes, people who simply inherited their money or, yes, people who work on Wall Street.
MOST important, neither entrepreneurs nor the rich have a monopoly on brains, sweat or risk. There are scientists — and artists and scholars — who are just as smart as any entrepreneur, only they are interested in different rewards. A single mother holding down a job and putting herself through community college works just as hard as any hedge fund manager. A person who takes out a mortgage — or a student loan, or who conceives a child — on the strength of a job she knows she could lose at any moment (thanks, perhaps, to one of those job creators) assumes as much risk as someone who starts a business.
Enormous matters of policy depend on these perceptions: what we’re going to tax, and how much; what we’re going to spend, and on whom. But while “job creators” may be a new term, the adulation it expresses — and the contempt that it so clearly signals — are not. “Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote in “Slaughterhouse-Five.” And so, “they mock themselves and glorify their betters.” Our most destructive lie, he added, “is that it is very easy for any American to make money.” The lie goes on. The poor are lazy, stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They shower their beneficence upon the rest of us.
Mandeville believed the individual pursuit of self-interest could redound to public benefit, but unlike Adam Smith, he didn’t think it did so on its own. Smith’s “hand” was “invisible” — the automatic operation of the market. Mandeville’s involved “the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician” — in modern terms, legislation, regulation and taxation. Or as he versified it, “Vice is beneficial found, / When it’s by Justice lopt, and bound.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 13, 2012, on page SR5 of the New York edition with the headline: Capitalists And Other Psychopaths.
http://theweek.com/article/index/225046/why-is-wall-street-full-of-psychopaths
Money quote: What are the symptoms of Wall Street psychopaths?
They "generally lack empathy and interest in what other people feel or think," writes DeCovny, who bases her report on interviews with several trade psychologists. Financial psychopaths are capable of displaying "an abundance of charm, charisma, [and] intelligence," but also possess an "unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation." (Sound like any presidential candidate we know?)
"I do think Romney is operating from the assumption that voters are stupid."...no Romney is operating under the assumption that no reporter will question his "facts" and no one will ever ask a follow-up question.
The Republicans and their voters live in a bubble, plain and simple (credit to Bill Maher for that). It is much easier to tell people what they want to hear than tell them the truth. Disinformation is the new norm, it is time to adapt and combat it instead of just whining about it. Besides, what path does Romney take to get elected if he campaigned on the facts?
People usually "grow up" as a result of repeated collisions with reality. It's not a pleasant process, involving as it does painful recognition that you've been a fool and an ass.
Some people are fortunate enough to have never been forced to grow up.
Given Romney's propensity for lying, the debates should be interesting this year. Elections are won or lost with independent voters, who generally watch debates with an open mind. Obama is too much on top of his game to let Pinocchio get away with lies in a debate. I can't see Romney being able to pull this off.
Sadly, Mittens debate performance, or lack of, may not matter much due to the 'just get the black guy out of office' mentality of so many... where otherwise it wouldn't even be a contest.