Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3403

Erickson takes aim at 'a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer'

We talked earlier about a Pew Research Center report, which found that women are now the sole or primary source of family income in 40% of U.S. households with children. The revelation led to an odd Fox segment yesterday, featuring Lou Dobbs and his panel of all-male guests, who didn't respond well to the news.

Of particular interest, Erick Erickson said those who think there's nothing with this social dynamic are "very anti-science." Why? Because according to Erickson, "When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society; in other animals the male typically is the dominant role." Women, in Erickson's mind, can play "a complementary role."

And apparently this "scientific" analysis has led the Republican pundit to believe there's "a war on women," as evidenced by so many American women proving income for their families.

This has since caused a bit of a stir, leading Erickson to respond on his far-right website, since, as he put it, "feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad." (Erickson is always a class act, is he not?)

"In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It's the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer."

Wait, am I the lazy beta-male MSNBC producer? I've been called so many things over the years, but "lazy" is a new one.

In any case, Erickson went on to say:

"Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine in the liberal fantasy world. Except in the real world it does not work out that way."

I should probably mention, for the benefit of those who aren't familiar with Erick Erickson's work, he's not kidding. This isn't satire or a parody of Republican pundits. He didn't publish this in a deliberate effort to make conservatives appear foolish, but rather, his missive is entirely sincere.

His piece went to argue that there's "nothing wrong with mothers having jobs" -- there's no end to Erickson's graciousness when it comes to explaining what women should be allowed to do -- but he's nevertheless outraged by mothers being the sole or dominant breadwinner in a household.

Indeed, that was the key takeaway from the all-male Fox panel Erickson participated in: men, they said, should be economically dominant in American society. To disagree is, in Fox's Doug Schoen's words, to invite "catastrophic" consequences that "could undermine our social order."

For Erickson, it's just "science" -- it's not his fault the facts are so misogynistic. "Reality," he argued, shows that his opinions are "the truth."

Right about now, some of you might be wondering whether Erickson has a professional and/or academic background in biology, zoology, or anthropology that encourages him to speak with such authority about the nuances of gender roles in "animal species." As it turns out, Erickson has no scientific background in any of these fields -- he just likes to make stuff up because it makes him feel better. After all, perhaps if he just throws around unsubstantiated claims about "science," those "feminist and emo lefties" who have "their panties in a wad" will cower in the face of his dubious intellect.

But to borrow a phrase, those of us "in the real world" should remember that Erickson has no idea what he's talking about, and his fears about the consequences of women becoming more economically powerful are ridiculous. Amanda Marcotte's piece on this rings true:

Erickson must have [learned] this nifty scientific "fact" by studying the animals in the well-known academic text, The Berenstain Bears, which clearly shows Papa Bear going out and earning the money while Mama Bear stays at home and cooks the food for the cubs. Of course, in the actual natural world, bears don’t make money -- plus there's a lot of diversity in how animals raise their young. (In case you're wondering, outside of the two weeks of maternity leave mothers take to nurse their babies, foxes embrace a fairly egalitarian approach to child rearing where both parents go out and get food for their young.) One thing, however, is certain: Other primates besides humans mostly shun the male-dominated monogamy that Erickson prefers, with most species living in large bands with lots of kinky partner swapping.

Needless to say, the utter destruction of social stability that these men predict from the growth of female independence is not borne out by the facts. The divorce rate is actually declining. The abortion rate is roughly what it was pre-Roe and is mostly in decline, in part because of all those women opting into the sole breadwinner lifestyle.... It’s true that these new breadwinner stats are not all good news, but the real problem is that men earning less means less money overall for the average American home. What's really hurting Americans isn't female equality, but growing income inequality between the rich and everyone else. Pitting men against women is simply a distraction from the real economic issues facing us all.

 

Wehner has it all figured out

Former Bush/Cheney aide Peter Wehner

It seems that Scandal Mania 2013, after a flurry of activity, has tapered off a bit. The Republican campaign to turn Benghazi into a political controversy fell apart; it seems pretty obvious the IRS matter was a bureaucratic mess that was not orchestrated by the White House; and Republicans don't seem to know quite what to do with the AP subpoenas, which were almost certainly legal anyway.

With no real revelations to speak of, the political world's focus is starting to shift, and polls suggest the public never took a particular interest in the so-called "scandals" in the first place. The RNC this week was reduced to publishing a memo to news organizations, insisting that the controversies really are controversies -- and once a reminder like this is deemed necessary, it's not a good sign.

So why is Scandal Mania 2013 losing steam? Common sense suggests it has something to do with the fact that there haven't been any especially interesting revelations, compounded by the fact that there are no meaningful connections between the allegations and President Obama. On the other hand, Peter Wehner, the White House director of "strategic initiatives" in the Bush/Cheney era, has a very different explanation (via Jon Chait).

The vast majority of journalists are highly sympathetic to a large federal government, and they know where these scandals, if pursued vigorously, will lead -- to a further deepening distrust of government. A new Fox News poll shows that more than two-thirds of voters feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. Journalists are aware that these scandals have the potential to deal a devastating blow to their progressive ideology, which is why they will downplay these stories as much as they can.

I'd almost forgotten how entertaining Wehner can be.

From his perspective, political reporters and major media outlets pounced in recent weeks on three unrelated stories, combining them in ways Republicans loved, trumpeting unsupported assertions about "presidential scandals" and a "White House in crisis." There was breathless coverage from every major news organization, many of which brushed past the merits of the controversies, and instead pondered what Obama would do to put out the undefined fires.

Then, as Wehner sees it, these exact same political reporters and major media outlets suddenly realized -- all at the same time -- that they actually can't pursue these stories anymore because the "scandals" would be ideologically upsetting. Wehner not only believes this, he felt comfortable putting this thought in print.

As Chait concluded, "So I guess the theory here is that journalists piled on all these stories, then realized there really was tons of evidence of wrongdoing, and they're now backing away because they realize it subverts their progressive ideology. Yeah, that sounds right."

Is it any wonder the Bush White House's "strategic initiatives" never seemed to work out well?

Rand Paul and civil rights, redux

Getty Images

There was a Senate hearing just last week on Apple using unprecedented schemes to sidestep U.S. tax laws, prompting Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to apologize to Apple for Congress bothering the company. And wouldn't you know it, a week later, Paul took a trip to Silicon Valley, seeking political support.

Wired sat down with the senator and broached an awkward subject (thanks to my colleague Vanessa Silverton-Peel for the heads-up).

Wired: Some of your positions on race issues and civil rights have led critics to hold back supporting you on the national-security issues they agree with you on. What do you say to these critics?

Paul: No. No.

Wired: Just -- no, period?

Paul: Yeah, I haven't had any problem. If you've seen or read anything I've ever written or talked about, you'll find someone who's been a great defender of minority rights, a great defender of those who wish to be different, those who are different, those who have different religious beliefs. Those who are of an ethnic group that may be a minority. You'll find no greater champion of someone who believes that you have rights, privileges and immunities that go beyond what majorities are allowed to do. Most of the bad things that have happened in our country in the past were things where we lost track of the fact that individual rights and freedoms ought to be protected by the Constitution.

Paul's apparent discomfort is understandable. It was just last month when the Kentucky Republican spoke at Howard University and lied rather blatantly about his record, while delivering a condescending lecture on historical details he didn't fully understand.

But his record is nevertheless clear. Despite his "you'll find no greater champion" rhetoric, Rand Paul has opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. He's also spoken out against the Americans With Disabilities Act and said children born in the United States should not be considered American citizens if their parents are undocumented immigrants.

Now, it's quite possible Paul would defend these positions by pointing to his libertarian principles, not his support of discrimination, and there's certainly room for a spirited debate on those principles. But his record is still his record, and it's genuinely awful on civil rights. For him to boast about his status as "a great defender of minority rights" only makes matters worse.

GOP sees school vouchers as a political panacea

Associated Press

A few months ago, following a lengthy "autopsy," the Republican National Committee unveiled a lengthy blueprint for the party's recovery, and though there wasn't much in the way of policy prescriptions, there was one issue the document mentioned three times: "school choice."

"School choice," a poll-test euphemism for private school vouchers, is generally characterized by GOP leaders as a way for Republicans to reach out to minority communities, position themselves as caring about domestic policy, and weaken labor unions, all at the same time. According to the Washington Times, the party is apparently taking the idea quite seriously.

A Republican Party still reeling from the November elections is hoping that advocating for school choice can help the GOP recapture moderate voters, arguing that the issue provides a natural link between their limited-government philosophy and the average voter's desire for good local schools.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican speaking to grass-roots activists in Concord last week, said the party can bolster its national image by making school choice -- giving parents the ability and the funds to choose between competing public and private schools for their children -- a more prominent part of its message.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal hit a similar note two weeks earlier, saying at a fundraiser in Manchester that the issue is a political winner because it saves money and produces better results.

The policy is also being touted by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), among others.

I can appreciate the appeal among Republican policymakers, who generally don't have much of a policy agenda to speak of. By pushing vouchers, GOP officials and candidates get to pander to social conservatives and satisfy the party's libertarian wing, all while infuriating teachers' unions. That the idea ostensibly gives Republicans a "compassionate conservative" veneer is gravy.

So why haven't we heard more about this lately? Largely because vouchers aren't the political panacea the GOP has been waiting for.

For one thing, there are serious constitutional concerns, as Jindal was recently reminded when his state Supreme Court scrapped his in-state voucher scheme.

Indeed, as we discussed last year, all of problems that have plagued vouchers for years haven't gone away -- if you're familiar with the larger debate, you'll recall serious concerns over public funding of religion; leaving behind students in sub-par schools; and giving tax dollars to unaccountable private operations, many of which have little to no standards for quality education.

What's more, there's very little evidence that vouchers actually help students in any measurable way, despite many years of research.

And while we're at it, let's also note that Republicans are convinced this is a political winner for them, but there's no evidence to support that, either -- vouchers have polled poorly for many years; they've failed repeatedly when put on statewide ballots; and though Mitt Romney endorsed vouchers last year, he was generally afraid to talk about his position, probably because he didn't want to deal with the political opposition.

The fact remains that conservatives have talked about vouchers and privatizing education for several decades now, and it's never been a political winner for the right. There's no reason to believe this new push will be any more successful than the previous ones.

Thursday's campaign round-up

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Virginia's gubernatorial campaign, Terry McAuliffe (D) has a new television ad rejecting unnamed Republicans who focus on "divisive" social issues, instead of job creation.

Watch on YouTube

* On a related note, Public Policy Polling released its new survey from Virginia yesterday and found McAuliffe leading state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) by five points, 42% to 37%. The poll found that McAuliffe is not popular among the commonwealth's voters, but Cuccinelli is in far worse shape.

* Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) yesterday became the latest Republican to announce he's not running for Iowa's open U.S. Senate seat next year. In recent weeks, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds (R), state Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey (R), and Reps. Tom Latham (R) and Steve King (R) all thought about the race, before deciding against it.

* In Nebraska, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R) announced he won't run in his state's open U.S. Senate race next year, either. His decision comes just two days after Gov. Dave Heineman (R) said he's skipping the race, too.

* In Maine, where Gov. Paul LePage (R) will seek a second term next year, the governor is in another dispute with Democrats in the state legislature. After being denied a request to speak to lawmakers, LePage said this week, "It's freedom of speech. You folks should understand that better than I. It is the First Amendment, then there is the Second and I love 'em both. The minute we start stifling our speech, we might as well go home, roll up our sleeves and get our guns out."

* Sen. Mark Pryor (D) is not at all pleased with the ad campaign against him from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, so the Arkansas Democrat has placed a $30,000 statewide cable buy that will begin pushing back later this week.

* And in Minnesota, Sen. Al Franken (D) now his first Republican challenger: Mike McFadden, a largely unknown businessman kicked off his Senate bid yesterday.

The 'science' of gender roles

Pew Research Center published an interesting report this week noting that women are now the sole or primary source of family income in 40% of U.S. households with children -- a record high. As Emily Arrowood explained, Fox host Lou Dobbs and his all-male panel of guests did not take the news well.

Watch on YouTube

The clip has to be seen to be believed, but for those who can't watch clips online, Dobbs said the Pew report is evidence of "society dissolving around us." Juan Williams said the more women become the "primary bread winner," the more we see "the disintegration of marriage." He added, "Left, right, I don't see how you can argue this."

Erick Erickson went even further:

"I am so used to liberals telling conservatives that they are anti-science. But I mean this is -- liberals who defend this and say it's not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society; in other animals the male typically is the dominant role, the female is not antithesis or is not competing; it's a complementary role."

Erickson added that "reality" tells us that "having mom as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids." This, Erickson concluded, is "a war on women."

The third male panelist -- there were no women guests on the program -- was Fox's Doug Schoen, who described this "a catastrophic issue" that "could undermine our social order."

Just so we're clear, this discussion, if we can call it that, took place yesterday, not in 1953.

There will come a point in the not-too-distant future when women are the sole or primary source of family income in half of American households. And when that happens, Dobbs may want to have fainting couches onto his Fox set, just in case any of his male guests start to have the vapors.

John McCain's allies in Syria

Source: John McCain's Senate office

John McCain in Syria with rebels.

A couple of weeks ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was stressing his position for U.S. policy in Syria: the senator wants the U.S. to provide Syrian rebels with extensive support, including "heavy weapons." ABC's Martha Raddatz reminded the senator that some of these Syrian rebels are terrorist who've sworn their allegiance to al Qaeda.

McCain said it's a "legitimate" question, but he wants to support them anyway. After all, he said, "there aren't that many" terrorists among the Syrian rebels he wants to give "heavy weapons" to.

Just two weeks later, McCain quietly traveled to Syria, and his office distributed photos from his visit to news organizations. One image, in particular, has generated some unexpected attention.

Senator John McCain's office is pushing back against reports that while visiting Syria this week he posed in a photo with rebels who kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shi'ite pilgrims.

The photo, released by McCain's office, shows McCain with a group of rebels. Among them are two men identified in the Lebanese press as Mohamed Nour and Abu Ibrahim, two of the kidnappers of the group from Lebanon.

McCain's office insists the senator was not aware that he'd met with Nour and Ibrahim -- if they are, in fact, the men in the photograph -- and they had not been identified as such during his trip. The spokesperson added that if McCain had unknowingly met with kidnappers, "that is regrettable."

It is, indeed.

McCain's office went on to tell BuzzFeed that it "would be ludicrous to suggest that the Senator in any way condones the kidnapping of Lebanese Shia pilgrims or has any communication with those responsible. Senator McCain condemns such heinous actions in the strongest possible terms."

And to be clear, I don't think anyone has suggested McCain is somehow sympathetic towards kidnappers. Rather, the point is the senator is eager to provide extensive resources to Syrian rebels, but he may not fully appreciate who his new allies are.

McCain added some additional thoughts on the subject last night.

When [Anderson Cooper] asked McCain how weapons would be prevented from falling into the hands of extremists, the senator said extremist fighters compose a small fraction of Syria's rebel forces: 7,000 pro-al Qaeda fighters from the al-Nusra front among some 100,000 insurgents.

"Every single day, more and more extremists flow in ... but they still do not make up a sizable portion," McCain told Cooper. "We can identify who these people are. We can help the right people."

Maybe, maybe not. But whether McCain can say with certainty who the "right people" are is very much in doubt.

One day, one crisis, two perspectives

Associated Press

The political world's focus on the climate crisis is sporadic, at best, so it's always good to hear President Obama not only mention the issue at an event in Chicago last night, but say he doesn't have "much patience" for those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change.

Obama warned donors that the climate is warming at an accelerated rate, and that while the dangers may not be readily apparent, they are still severe.

"But the flipside is we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago, and that the future...in part, is going to depend on our willingness to deal with something that we may not be able to see or smell the way you could when the Chicago River was on fire, or at least could have caught on fire, but is in some ways more serious, more fundamental," Obama said.

Because of that seriousness, Obama said he's willing to hear out "a different approach" to dealing with the issue. What he won't consider though, he said, are ideas from climate change deniers.

A few hours earlier, folks attending the Exxon Mobil annual meeting in Dallas heard a very different message.

The CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. says there's no quick replacement for oil, and sharply cutting oil's use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would make it harder to lift 2 billion people out of poverty.

"What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?" CEO Rex Tillerson said at the oil giant's annual meeting Wednesday.

Let's pause for a moment to consider that quote, because it's a doozy.

"What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?" I'm not an expert, but I'm reasonably certain the point of saving the planet is to prevent suffering. As the climate crisis intensifies and accelerates, the need for a solution grows, not for its own sake, but because the threats posed by climate change may prove catastrophic in the not-too-distant future.

Tillerson's argument seems to be predicated on two assumptions: (1) reducing carbon emissions is necessarily bad for the economy, a dubious assertion to be sure; and (2) it's better to have a more robust economy now than a healthy global climate later.

For the record, Exxon Mobil shareholders considered a proposal to require the oil giant to set goals to reduce emissions. Shareholders rejected it by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.

Ahead on the 5/29 Maddow show

Tonight's guests include:

Frank Rich, writer-at-large for New York Magazine

Neill Franklin, executive direct of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and 34-year police veteran

Here is executive producer Bill Wolff, bringing you the freshest news of the day, every single day:

 

Wednesday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Afghanistan: "A suicide bomber blew himself up at the gates of a Red Cross building in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on Wednesday, clearing the way for two other insurgents to run inside and open fire, police said."

* Pakistan: "A suspected American drone strike killed the deputy leader of the Pakistani Taliban early Wednesday, Pakistani officials and militants said, dealing a potentially serious blow to an insurgency that has killed thousands of people in Pakistan and encouraged Islamist attacks in the United States."

* On a related note: "The White House on Wednesday declined to confirm reports of a drone attack that may have killed the No. 2 commander in the Pakistani Taliban."

* These ought to be lively meetings: "Attorney General Eric Holder is planning to meet with the Washington, D.C., bureau chiefs of major news outlets this week as he reviews the Justice Department's (DOJ) policies for issuing media subpoenas."

* And speaking of Holder: "The White House on Wednesday defended Attorney General Eric Holder from accusations that he lied under oath to Congress regarding his involvement in the monitoring of a Fox News reporter's email account."

* Painfully typical: "Rep. Paul Ryan, the House GOP's budgetary chieftain, gave a brief but remarkable interview to the Washington Examiner's David Drucker in which he essentially conceded that Republicans will only negotiate with Democrats if they can hold the U.S. economy hostage to increase their leverage."

* Hmm: "In a campaign to recall a Colorado Springs state senator over his stance on firearm regulations, supporters can win gun-themed prizes. Bob Kooser found out Thursday in a mass email to volunteers working to recall Colorado Senate President John Morse that he won a 30-round ammunition magazine."

* Sigh: "Reporting that House Republicans are investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress during his recent testimony about Justice Department seizures of communications records in connection with a national security leak investigation, CNN's Dana Bash misstated key facts of the controversy."

* Fred Kaplan considers James Rosen: "I'm not saying that Rosen should have been treated like a criminal; even Holder is backpedaling from that claim now. But he could have written his story without revealing that nugget about the inside source. The story might have been a little less compelling; his audience might have wondered how he or his official contacts knew that a test was coming. But the U.S. government might also still have a decent intelligence source inside North Korea."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.