Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Andrew Sullivan: Boehner's Economic Terrorism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
nsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:46 PM
Original message
Andrew Sullivan: Boehner's Economic Terrorism
(I realize that quoting Andrew Sullivan around here is the equivalent of throwing chum in the waters, but I thought this was a very good summary of the GOP's position on the debt limit.)

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

We have a potential catastrophe of national default, an event whose consequences are unknowable but which could quite easily wreck the US and global economies, profoundly damage people's savings, raise interest rates and destroy jobs for a very long time. In most countries, the goal of the entire political class is to avoid such a thing if at all possible. Greece is currently facing down riots in order to slash its deficit. Britain is entering a period of profound austerity. All of this pain is to prevent the worst possible crisis to hit a country: default. All responsible politicians understand this is something to be avoided at all costs. Conservatives especially see any weakening of the full faith and credit of sovereign governments or the EU as very destabilizing to growth and democratic stability.

So here we are in the USA, with our own awful debt crisis, and the possibility of default and one of the two major parties is saying effectively: bring it on.

(snip)

For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical. I say this as someone who was railing against too much spending when these people were throwing money away like it was confetti. "Deficits don't matter," remember?

(snip)

It seems to me there are two options the president can take. The first is what you are told to do when a criminal or terrorist holds a gun to your head. You surrender.... The second option is to bypass them, invoke the 14th Amendment, and order the Treasury to keep paying its debts because an extraordinarily reckless faction wants to destroy the American economy in order to save it (and pin the subsequent double-dip recession on Obama).

(snip)

What you probably cannot do is negotiate with economic equivalent of terrorists. What Cantor and Boehner are doing is essentially letting the world know they have an economic WMD in their possession. And it will go off if you do not give them everything they want, with no negotiation possible. That's the nature of today's GOP. It needs to be destroyed before it can recover.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
david_vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have no idea who this Andrew Sullivan guy is, but he's wrong
on at least one point: the austerity measures in the UK are largely being driven by ideology, not necessity, as has been demonstrated several times right here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's good, getting better, some DUers have recogized it, others should.
'clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. today's GOP. It needs to be destroyed before it can recover.
This is an amazing statement coming from Sully, former Republican as he was. He's one of the few reasonable conservatives remaining. I often appreciate his perspective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. His description is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nancy Waterman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is a terrific article!!
Economic terrorism is the perfect description
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiranon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. The right name for the GOP is "neo anarchists". They want no government
to regulate them not because people are good and can rule themselves but because they have greed in mind and do not want anyone stopping them from getting their share of the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-03-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Brilliant!
Bachman, Paul Ryan, Boner are all Neo Anarchists! We need to get this out in the mainstream. If can label them for what they truly are, they will be marginalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatteLibertine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. The GOP
are simply furthering this nation's move towards a plutocracy. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Is Andrew a voice of reason now? The Andrew that loves republicans when in power?
When we have a republican for President in 2012, he will need to switch sides again to keep his party list open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sullivan has been critical of the GOP since at least 2003.
He endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. At some point, the statue of limitations has to run out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Here is an example of this 'support for Kerry. An article from Oct
2004 called 'Kerry looks like the ultimate loser' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article484284.ece
Enjoy that. Then go look up the shite Sullivan said about those who opposed the Iraq invasion, he slandered and judged and called people traitorous, he did not just have an opinion, as always he had a tirade of characterizations for those who did not agree with Sully. Of course, later he was so sorry to have been a cheer leader for the Invasion. When it turned out to egg on his smug face.
He can go rot, no matter what he's pushing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I didn't say Sullivan loved Kerry.
I said he endorsed him, which he did: link. He more enthusiastically endorsed Obama: link.

My point is not that Sullivan is a Democrat (he's not) or that we should take what he says uncritically. Rather, my point is that reflexively dismissing his arguments doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable given what he's written over the last 7-8 years. He's been a strong proponent of gay marriage, a strong opponent of torture, and a biting critic of Fox News and Rovian political tactics. He's argued repeatedly against the Republican party's hypocrisy on fiscal policy. He's been a lot more supportive of Obama than a lot of the people who post on this very forum. He's (famously) been a skeptic of Sarah Palin and a critic of what he calls "Christianism" in American politics.

Sullivan is still a conservative, at least using an older definition of that word. But I think it's worthwhile for liberals to read what someone like him has to say, because unlike today's "conservatives," he seems to be arguing in good faith. Yes, good faith: I've read him pretty regularly over the last seven years -- which, I would guess, most of his critics here have not -- and, even when I think he's wrong, I don't doubt he's trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC