For the past generation, Republican leaders, talk-show hosts and elected officials have made it their mission to mock anyone of serious intellectual import (liberal elitist!), attack the professional class and wonder aloud about proven science on about as constant a loop as “Sex In The City” reruns on E!. [...]
Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, thinks he sounds awful smart when he bullies counsel for the liberal side of any case before the Court and uses Tea-Party talking points to do it. Most recently, he compared the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act to making people buy broccoli. [...]
Then there is presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, “the ideas guy.” I’m not quite sure what most of them are, or if they involve large ethics fines, but a guy who’s calling for destroying government’s ability to do anything while simultaneously proposing a lunar colony–well, let’s just say Pauly Shore was also big in the 90s and probably had some ideas too.
Finally we have Rep. Paul Ryan, who recently released a budget document so utterly obtuse, that the House GOP Caucus had to go and vote for it right away. To get to the heart of Ryan, let me again harness the wit and wisdom of Nobel-Prize winner Paul Krugman:
“Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger…is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is.”
Cliff Schecter is the President of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, and the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain.
Follow him on Twitter: @Cliffschecter
Next, Mark Karlin's BuzzFlash post, with a little help from Charles Pierce and his best seller, "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free":
Pierce pulled no punches in goring sacred cows, such as the New York Times:
I think the illustrative sentence, for all three of what I call the great premises of Idiot America came from The New York Times, which was talking about the intelligent design movement. And the sentence that appeared on the front page of The New York Times is called the intelligent design movement -- "a politically savvy challenge to evolution." Which is self-evidently ridiculous. It's like deciding that you're going to have an agriculturally savvy challenge to Newtonian geometry. It doesn't work.
It doesn't matter how many people vote for the candidate of the Alchemy Party ticket. He's not going to be able to change lead to gold. It doesn't matter how many people in the Gallup Poll think they should be able to flap their arms and fly to the moon -- they're not going to be able to do it. So when you have The New York Times, on the front page, posing a self-evidently ridiculous notion like a politically savvy challenge to evolution -- actually it's not. It's a politically savvy challenge to the poor bastards who are trying to teach high school biology.
Pierce artfully explains the demagoguery that is today's political surround sound, and why it is do difficult for Obama to effectively communicate with many Americans, when he states:
[...] It has a lot to do with the fact that so much of our national discourse on important issues takes place in an entertainment context. The worst thing you can do, is to know what you're talking about. If you know what you're talking about, you're not going to speak in sound bites. You are very rarely going to speak in sound bites if you know what you're talking about. If you know what you're talking about, most problems are very nuanced and very complicated.
Please read the whole post here.