Bravo!

Your bravery and eloquence are unmatched.

Bravo Roger.

Roger,

To put it simple, right now conservatives are infected with a dangerous strain of Right-Wing Authoritarianism.

Unpaid sales pitch:
Bob Altmeyer at the University of Manitoba has been studying authoritarianism for decades. He published an excellent book online discussing the subject. I encourage anyone who is shocked by the attitude and behavior of so-called modern conservatives to read this book. He also has good follow-ups on the 2008 election and the Tea Party movement.

The book is free:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I agree with you on all points, but in all objectivity would be interested in seeing a similar list for the Democrats, who are no less guilty of mis-managing the government.

To say Wall Street has the Obama administration wrapped around its little finger is misleading...The Obama administration is its little finger.

In January 2010 I wrote about The Next Bubble, looking back at the Dot.com, Real Estate and Financial Bubbles and predicting that the Political Bubble would be next.

The Political Bubble is getting bigger, and if those of use who sit in the middle, turn down the Kool-Aid, and choose to follow common sense and logic in our decison-making continue to speak out, perhaps one day we may succeed in popping it.

Adding to my earlier comment about Right-Wing Authoritarianism, I'd also recommend the following books by John Dean:

"Conservatives Without Conscience"

"Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches"

These were written before the full-scale Tea Party freakout, but they help explain how we got here. If you're too young to remember (I know I was), just look up John Dean to find out how he knows a little something about right-wing authoritarianism.

It amuses me that rejection of biological theories of evolution is so closely tied with the reactionary fringe in this country, since our society is clearly evolving against their wishes.

Very nice article, Roger. As usual.

I love that a man who makes somewhere in the high five figures a year (or more) has the arrogance to tell the rest of us what jobs we'd be willing to perform and at what rates. Two of my best friends are single parents in their mid 30's. One of them has taken a night job working fast food while the other is a night shift janitor. Both of their 2nd jobs are at minimum wage. Both of them are looking for a 3rd job. Please, Roger, enjoy your money but don't presume to know anything about how life is for those of us who are struggling financially. You're from the suburbs and had/have your own tv show. Quit pretending you have any association with the financial realities of the average American.

I would like to know the poll which says 71% of Americans believe we should raise taxes. If that's true, then our country is made up of 71% idiots. This country has had a spending problem for the past 80 years. We have too many people who aren't taking care of themselves and look to the government to do it for them. The top 1% of our country already pays enough (and I'm not one of them) so either the middle class must pay more (not a good idea) or people are going to have to take care of themselves (not likely). I think Ebert has spent too much time in big city Chicago and not enough time where real middle class Americans live. It's hard to see us little people from an ivory tower.

I agree with most of what you say, Roger, with one major exception. When push comes to shove, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will do whatever Wall Street tells them to do. All other issues are simply window dressing designed to whip each respective side into a frenzy of distraction. This was most clearly illustrated last year when Congress and Obama approved the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Obama and Democrats campaigned long and hard on repealing those cuts, but in the end they kept them. They were looking out for their own, plain and simple.

I don't have a link to it (I know it's on Youtube), but George Carlin spoke about this in one of his final standup routines. In short: the system is rigged, and unless you happen to be among the richest 1%, ain't nobody looking out for you.

Have a great day!

Environmentalists have sadly lost the narrative war, and the focus on the polarizing, ephemeral, unknowable _future_ of Global Warming is a bad way to educate the public. People care as much about the year 2100 as they do for some microscopic endangered organism. The media has successfully controlled both sides of the story by picking these abstract issues and making them the sole public arguments.

Really, the Environmental movement needs to focus more on how pollution and corporate abuses affects us NOW, how it has affected us in the past, how cancers and mutations and general ill health are impacting humans living today. Worry less about ice caps and more about your cancer-endangered family members.

ou sit in your little ivory tower surrounded by your millions like Scrooge McDuck and have no idea what's going on in the real world.

Sorry. Most people - Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats DO NOT WANT Obamacare, healthcare. Have you ever lived in any of those countries that have universal healthcare because I have. The quality is subpar and the people are taxed up the wazoo.
No we do not want new taxes. The middle class is drowning. We have been hit by the Republicans for eight years who almost ruined this country. Now the Democrats want to finish the job.

No more tax cuts to billionaires. Also no welfare, adc, any money to illegals. You're right, we welcome Indians, Asians - they work hard, limit the size of their families, get a good education and work. But last year at work, the little daughter of a man said to me : "If you want to stay in sales, you'd better learn spanish." I got one of the Nigerians that I work with to go after them (He threw them out of the store.) Do not give me crap about who's going to pick the fruit. They run over the border to give birth then tap into the welfare system. They steal IDs of citizens to get jobs because of the crackdowns, then run up bills.They come to this country for a hand-out.
Other immigrants come here because of our culture and to become assimilated. South of the border they come here in droves - not to work, but to tap into the money train. The Asians and Indians I know hate them, HATE THEM. THEY come to this country for a better life not to pay taxes to support deadbeats. As my friend Linda, who is from Viet Nam said, "What is wrong with these people? We came to this country. We had no money, couldn't speak the language and we're all doing fine. So, what's their (Blacks, Mexicans) problem?"

But no more tax cuts for billionaires either. Let them pay taxes. If Social Security and Medicare is cut or eliminated expect 100 million Baby Boomers on the street. I am not exaggerating. After seeing our 401ks and pensions eliminated after eight years of Republicans all we have left is Social Security which is OUR money. It is not welfare. We can't afford to retire but our jobs are given to kids out of school with no experience. Who don't want to pay into Social Security.

We are the middle class. We have been keeping this country together. You rich people can be taxed because we don't have it. In case you missed the bulletin - unemployment is at an all time high and foreclosures are common. And no more money for deadbeats - welfare, adc, illegals. These are people who don't work, do not want to work, breed more just like themselves.

I lived in Chicago for thirty years and Houston for twenty. Unlike you I have been in the trenches.

Ebert: Uncle Scrooge is not in my tower.

Good stuff, Roger!

I must disagree with the premise that "paying down" our national debt is that important right now. We might even ask what it even means to "pay down" our debt.

Debt holders had dollars which they exchanged for bonds in order to get a return. They can change those bonds back to dollars anytime they want to. We "pay back" our debt when those dollars are spent back into our economy. Right now a lot of bond holders are more eager to maintain their savings than to spend. If they do start spending, then employment will rebound (since spending equals income). That would be great!

Since our government issues its own currency, it can never unwillingly go bankrupt. The risk of too much government spending is inflation, which is not a risk right now (at least not the kind of inflation driven by too much aggregate demand. Higher gas prices might nudge up inflation). In fact, our unemployment levels tell us that our nation is suffering from an overall lack of spending.

Besides, the Clinton surplus was basically the government destroying more funds through taxation than it was creating through spending. This drain of liquidity from the economy was partially responsible for the subsequent recession.

The government does not need funds for spending (if it did, where did the money originate that it is taxing?). It taxes to destroy excess demand out of the economy to prevent inflation.

all the best, Steven

You are a brave man, Roger. While I agree with most of what you say here, you are courting the fringe (and crackpot) responses with statements like "it is a fact that our economy needs and employs them". Good luck with this one (though I sense you are always tickled by whatever responses you get).

Excellent summary, and I'm looking forward to the comments on this. I'm expecting some commenters to go totally hyperbolic, complete with name-calling and reams of anti-Obama non-sequiturs. I'm looking at this from outside the USA, and am constantly amazed at how extremists manage to politicise the non-political.

Well said Mr. Ebert. One thing is missing though. I would propose a new bulletpoint.

9. Hatred of President Obama.

It seems as if the right-wing Republicans (and really, in 2011, is there any other kind?) are willing to crash the entire U.S. economy (maybe the world economy?) in order to bring the president down.

My goodness, this feels like a relief off MY chest. Merci merci merci beaucoup, from a fellow cinephile and a faithful reader of your writings!

I wonder how many elephantine nerves this entry struck?

Back during the 1996 Clinton-Dole election, Bill Maher (back when he still had a sense of humor, and was only beginning to be America's Socio-Political Martyr ;) ) did a classic standup routine on "What if Bob Dole was the President giving the inspirational speech to the pilots in ID4?":
"All I know is, this wouldn't have happened if the Star Wars missile system had been in place--I voted for that on the Senate floor; the vote was 64-36, don't know if any of you remember that...Well, we don't have that now. And now we've got the aliens coming in, with their death rays; not gonna explain death-rays, I'll leave that to the scientists. All I know is that when they DO get here, they're gonna tax-and-spend just like the Democrats did for eight years...." :)

I have never...EVER...since heard a more concise and perfectly self-contained satire of why Republicans lose elections to a more charismatic Democratic candidate like Clinton or Obama (And we can never really be sure whether Bush DID beat Gore...):
Republicans believe that Anger gives you importance. They believe that if you heckle your opponent like a third-grader on a school playground, it takes away their political power. And they believe that if they have three or more Angry adult-third-graders in a room who agree with each other, it is now a Movement.
It may come as a shock to Republicans that most average middle-class Americans do not LIKE to be Angry as a going matter of choice. It gives you a headache, builds up the blood pressure, and, in most social situations, makes you look like a combination of Pee-Wee Herman and Gale Gordon. Most of us normal working folk would rather avoid the whole hassle.
And where Anger fails, there is always Persecution Complex: Even most Republicans stared in jawdropped dismay when John McCain, via his "Paris Hilton" ad, turned the '08 Republican platform into "Geez, if you like Obama so much, why don'tcha marry him, already?"

Case in point, the Taxes. They don't like paying taxes. They believe, or hope, that most Americans are ANGRY about paying taxes. While war rages in Afghanistan, and our cities and schools are in need of support, they believe that Americans are ANGRY enough about paying taxes to join the Secret Pirate Club and put their own politician into Congress.
That's not "stubbornness" about a single issue, that's practically autism. And it's kinda creepy when the Democratic candidate is talking about five other current issues in the debate--When the Republican candidate turns the Foreign issue back into a Taxation one, the urge is almost to wave an "anybody home?" hand in front of his face and see if he knows he's still in the same room.

To be a Conservative, by definition, means that you wish to Conserve, meaning that you wish to keep things exactly the way they are or used to be...That don't do much for certain folks who get all huffy about believing in Evolution, whether social or otherwise.

Health Care. The Tea Party fights it using the boogie man of socialism.

As has been often pointed out, go back and look at the criticism of FDR's New Deal. And that was back when 30's Socialism actually was an existing creeping-social threat to be worried about.
The parallels are many, and populist-sheltered talk radio didn't even exist back then.

Oh Roger, I so agree with you.
Trouble is.. I think that the 'average' American isn't really paying that much attention to anything going on in Washington, and so they'll continue to blindly elect these fools. The Repubs will go on the election circuit and, after failing to do their jobs for another term and leaving the country worse off, again, they will say, "See! Look! Government doesn't work! Elect us because the Democrats can't make their Big Government work!" And the people will believe them. And the people will vote for them. This works especially well when the political rallies more closely resemble church revivals...

I'm reminded of the bumper sticker I saw a few weeks ago: "It's not tea. It's corporate kool-aid."

Great post, btw.

Goodness gracious. I don't know whether I've ever seen so many generalizations and mischaracterizations compiled in one place. And the statistics, were they taken straight from a Daily Kos poll? And isn't it bizarre that you indicate that the GOP is out of step with the masses, yet acknowledge they control the house and perhaps soon the Presidency? Is this not a contradiction? Until now I've been quite happy to read your most excellent reviews and dismiss your misguided political rants, but I'm now sad to say my overall loss of respect will surely taint my appreciation of the reviews.

To say "seventy-one percent of Americans agree right now that taxes should be increased" is pretty misleading. I take it you're citing the CBS poll which claimed "only 21 percent of the people surveyed said they approved of Republicans' handling of the negotiations, while 71 percent disapprove." People could disapprove for all sorts of reasons, not just that they want taxes raised. Additionally, the poll was pretty flawed as is argued in this article: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/07/18/woof_deeply_flawed_cbs_poll_says_71_percent_of_voters_disapprove_of_gops_handling_of_debt_negotiations

I honestly wish you would use more statistics to support your claims; these mostly seem to be emotion-based arguments, and while I agree with a few of them you lose much credibility in not adding supporting statistics, or on most of the subject even attempting to see if from your opponents' view. There are reasons why having illegal immigrants is bad for this nation, the major one being crime. Areas with large amounts of illegal immigrants are areas with large rates of crime; show me one statistic of a peaceful place where they live. There are few on the right who think that health care reform is a bad thing (not all on the right are rich CEOs, the job decline has affected them, too); but Obama's plan is so compromised from the start, and has so many pigeon-holing earmarks that it really destroys any possibility of having faith in it. The entire bill started as "let's fix health care" and became "let's squeeze whatever additional budget expenses we can into fixing health care, oh and health care has to be further compromised." I'm not ready to sacrifice all of those private sector jobs until there's a healthy alternative that will bring back most of those jobs. Just because the left supports something, doesn't mean it doesn't require an unbiased review before making a decision, Mr. Ebert.

I feel bad for folks that believe there's a real difference between these two parties. All progressives like Dubya and puppet boy in the WH are good for is bankrupting this nation in pursuit of a New World Order.

Recognize these in our discourse this century?

The Face of Fascism

The Cult of Tradition: Founding fathers, et al
Rejection of modernism
Disagreement=treason
Thinking=emasculation
Against a "rotten" government: " Washington is broken"
Obsession with plot: Mainstream Media, socialist leftists, etc.
Contempt for the weak

(adapted from Umberto Eco)

Defense spending in your country has contributed very little to the debt crisis. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the government less than $200 billion annually. The total combined cost of the wars through FY2010 was $1.05 trillion (too much admittedly). In 2007 the wars were raging for a number of years. The tax cuts were fully in effect. The new prescription drug program was in place. And your deficit was 1.2 percent of GDP. The debt in relation to GDP declined in both 2006 and 2007. The debt as a percent of GDP at the end of 2007 was only marginally higher than it was in 2001. The deficit in 2007 was two-thirds smaller than it was in 2003 – the year that the tax cuts were implemented, the war in Iraq started and the new Medicare Part D program was passed into law. The evidence is clear. The supply-side tax cut of 2003 inspired economic growth that occurred in the middle of the decade grew revenues at such tremendous rates that they paid for all this additional spending AND reduced the overall deficit by about 60 percent in nominal terms. By any reasonable analysis these programs cannot be blamed for the massive spike in the deficit that took place since 2007 – the year that the Democrats regained control of Congress. Today, the deficit as a percent of GDP is higher than any time since WWII. Anyone who thinks that the Bush policies were the reason for the deficit simply isn’t paying attention.

The fact is that Obamacare doesn't reduce the deficit. It blows an even bigger hole in the deficit than already exists. The Democrats wrote a bill that was filled with smoke and mirrors. When you take into account all the double counting and other gimmicks, Obamacare will increase the deficit by over $700 billion over the next ten years.

Hear, hear.

I think a large part of this is related to the fact that the Republican party and their supporters like Rush Limbaugh, have declared war on intellectuals for decades in an attempt to reach out to the "salt of the earth" (a term to which Mel Brooks added a few rather appropriate words in Blazing Saddles).

The problem with this is that by declaring ALL intellectuals to be "LIBERAL SOCIALIST HIPPY TREE-HUGGERS! RAAARGH!", they've driven away the intelligent members of their own party, who were driven by sincere beliefs in fiscal conservatism, and attracted outright idiots like Bachmann and Palin, who've both demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge of basic American History (or, hell, even American Folklore like Paul Revere's Ride), and the various Tea Party Congressmen who seem to lack even a 5th-grader's grasp of basic Civics. Or, Gods forbid, the people who post comments on Yahoo news stories...

Thank you for this essay. The GOP has been hounded into an unholy alliance with the T-Party, the fruit of which is just plain insanity, and a steady attack on the Constitution and our Democracy. I hope Americans will awaken from their sugar-induced stupor and realize what's going on. I hope that true Republicans will fend off the chains of the T-Party. Keep up the good work, Mr. Ebert, sound the alarm and speak the truth.

Andrew Brightfart will read this and fume. And that makes me happy.

Nice words. I could nitpick some of your points, but your overall message is sound. What gets me is this notion that liberals are waging "class warfare" on conservatives in general, Republicans specifically. There is class warfare alright, but it's being waged by the rich on the middle class.

On the gay rights issue, Michele Bachmann's husband is a closeted gay man if I ever saw one (IMO). That is probably the reason that he purportedly insists that gay can change. He is most-likely struggling with that himself and is desperately trying to hold on to it.

Elect Obama in 2012! We need more high unemployment. We need more corruption. We need more stimul- uh, slush funds. We need more people on food stamps. We need higher inflation. We need people's homes to lose their value. National dept isn't high enough- re-elect Obama. We NEED more racial division- vote Obama! We need to grow the public sector even more- VOTE OBAMA. We need a debacle like Obamacare. VOTE OBAMA! Like high gas prices? Want more energy regulations? Want to stop drilling for oil? Vote Obama! Want to be told what you can eat and what you cannot eat? Vote Obama.

(Speaking of the latter, since when Michelle Obama the authority on good health? Obama clearly doesn't listen to her advice, since he's always eating hotdogs, milk shakes, french fries. Even Michelle doesn't follow her own advice. Hypocrite.)

Please re-elect this 'community organizer'! He may be incompetent. He may be petulant. He may be a narcissist. He may be a neophyte. He may be a Chicago politician.

To borrow from the great Ronald Reagan (whom was speaking of Jimmy Carter):

Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his.

We've had 2.5 years of failed socialism. Socialism DOESN'T WORK. Socialism doesn't create wealth- it redistributes it.

Obama lied, jobs died.

When is Obama going to be a man and accept responsibility and fix things and stop blaming others? If all fails, blame Bush. Blame Bush. BLAME BUSH. BLAME FOX NEWS. Yada, yada, yada.

Obama is no leader. Obama is a joke. "Hope" and "Change" my ass.

With Obama (and any other Democrat) it's- black vs. white, woman vs. man, gay vs. straight, poor vs. rich, atheist vs. Christian... etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore, it's the liberal Democrats who are ABORTING themselves out of existence.

Roger -
As a "Reasonable Republican" of many years, I agree with your assessment. There is a little passionate hyperbole here, but you are right.

My opinion is this: Stop taxing the wealthy. I know it is fashionable to demonize the rich and that's what the Democratic Party is trying to do. But, think about it, who owns corporations? The wealthy. Do you know a poor person who owns a corporation?

Give them a break and they will be able to hire more people, give out bonuses and not have to do lay offs because they can't afford to keep people on.

Hello Roger,

Among the many conservatives who will jump into this discussion, I may be one of the few who doesn't question your right to address these matters in the first place. Nor do I reject everything you say -- there's definitely an excess of excess in precincts of the Republican Party lately, and their stance on many of the issues you've discussed here is the reason I go around these days identifying myself with a small "c" instead of a capital "R" (much less a capital "TP").

But in the time you've been blogging and tweeting, I feel I've watched you harden. There's less and less nuance, which is to say reflection, in the way you express your politics, and you may want to step back and consider the credibility of a person who can tweet

America will remember the blind GOP
ideology that led us into trouble.

or

White supremacists gearing up for
campaigns. There goes another
slice of GOP votes.

If you're angry, you're angry. A guy's gotta right. Happens to me too. But just remember that both sides have their blind ideologies ("no amount of government is ever enough" and "the rich are bad and therefore deserve any screw-them legislation we can imagine" come to mind, without even venturing into abortion etc.). Both wings have their nuts. Is that what you want to be?

I love political differences. I revel in debate. A while back I let my inexperience with Twitter sour what would otherwise have been a nice one with you (high school assholes, US flag, etc.). And I've cultivated the habit of reading everything you write because of your surpassing ability to turn ideas over in your mind and express what you see there.

Your first reaction to my note will be indignation. Who the hell am I? Fair question. You will want to rebut. But please give a moment's thought to the fact that at least one person out there -- not a Tea Partier, not a religious nut, someone who counts himself thoughtful and capable of moderation -- is seeing changes you may not like to see in yourself. If being Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich is bad, is being their photographic negative any better?

I wouldn't take the time to piss you off like this if I didn't care. Have at me.

You are correct about a lot of things. But you are dead wrong on taxes. When Obama says he wants to raise taxes on millionaires he means raise them on Americans making salaries in the low six figures. Believe it or not in America today that is not wealthy. I already pay 40 percent of my income in taxes. If my taxes are raised another dollar my house goes on the market. When Democrats talk about closing tax loopholes they include removing tax breaks for charitable contributions. I am the President of a non profit organization that helps abused and abandoned children and is almost entirely dependent on charitable contributions from the wealthy. You raise taxes by closing this "loophole" I am unemployed. Raising taxes on "the rich" is a misnomer. You will in fact be sticking it to people who have worked every day of their life to be successful in life. I am not a millionaire and I cannot afford another dollar in taxes and I don't want to see the end of non profit organizations in America.

Ebert: "...because there seem to be few Americans willing to perform such labor at the prevailing rates."

What a self defeating argument you make here. If nobody was wiling to do the work "at the prevailing rate" companies would be forced to raise the rate in order to attract workers. Then American workers would take the job and unemployment would go down. Or do you mean to suggest that the work is such that no American will do it regardless of the compensation offered? That is unconvincing to me.

Do you favor immigrant workers earning subsistence living rates? How does that help anyone in the economy?

The market should dictate the value of services provided , and it does so across most of the working landscape of this country. But the waves of undocumented workers present a variable that makes it nearly impossible for the market to set a fair wage for the work you deem to be "beneath" many Americans.

It isn't about Republicans and Democrats anymore. The two parties are becoming indistinguishable. Power is being wielded by politicians of both parties who have been bought and paid for by corporations and the wealthy using campaign contributions.

Our republic has been sold-out to the highest bidders.

The strategy of the corporate owners and the moneyed interests is to buy as many Republicans as they can (i.e. all of them) and then just enough Democrats as needed to maintain a voting majority in both houses. They also buy the President's policy decisions using campaign contributions in the same way.

The results are clear: Wall Street has recovered nicely, while Main Street continues to suffer at crisis levels. High unemployment means low pressure on wages and greater corporate profits. Corporate and government law breaking goes unprosecuted and unpunished. Our bought and paid for government is focused on reducing spending and keeping taxes low for the wealthiest while 1 in 4 children are living in poverty and unemployment continues to grow to close to double-digit levels. Contracting government during a time of high unemployment is exactly the opposite of what should be done to reduce unemployment, but it is not what the owners of the government want.

It isn't about Republicans and Democrats anymore. It is about big money and big media. If you really want to understand who is in charge, look at who is benefitting the most and who is making the big campaign contributions and big media buys. They are one and the same.

Second try... I wanted to thank you for this thoughtful, informed and thoroughly correct article before you get flamed by the right wingers. From my vantage point here in blood red Utah, the right wing puzzles and alarms me greatly. They deny so much of reality, and they are impervious to any arguments, since they really do seem to be getting their "information" from a different planet than the rest of us.

You talk as if you're speaking for the average American...as if you were their champion...but you're just speaking for the average liberal.

Correct on all counts. The only thing is that I think you underestimate just how many other Americans subscribe to these ideologies. Most of my family will argue each of these points, and they aren't uneducated hicks. They're intelligent, wealthy people living in a major suburb. They're wrong, and they're being sloppy thinkers on these points, but the average person is also a very sloppy thinker.

It can be disheartening to be disappointed by the Democrats time and again. President Obama, while still undoubtedly better than the alternatives we had at the time, has turned his back on a lot of common sense, liberal views for no reason I can understand. From relatively small things, such as off-handedly discarding the idea of legalizing certain drugs without so much as an explanation, to major ones, like giving himself the right to order the assassination of Americans without due process, he's managed to disappoint me again and again. Chances are that he still has my vote, because even with all those flaws he's still better than what the Republicans offer. I will accept an administration that is misguided, disappointing and even slightly sinister over one projecting outright insanity and zealotry.

In that way, they really do themselves a disservice. I can't imagine ever voting for Republican candidates, no matter how reasonable they act, because of the people standing next to them. All too frequently, Christian privilege or bigotry of omission seep their way into administrations that previously appeared reasonable. Look at John McCain.

Watch out for that God Complex Mr. Ebert.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html

Roger,

Thanks for the piece. It is a well reasoned and well written article that outlines the issues we face from a logical perspective. It is comical to me that issues like global warming or healthcare for all are even debatable at this point. I can't help but think that the rest of the modern world laughs at our adolescent view of these subjects, not to mention our nomination of borderline lunatic people like Michelle Bachmann to public office.

I hope that we all move forward realizing that we are entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts.

And even if the current SNL--born of a generation that has literally Forgotten How To Be Funny--realizes that their last hope of achieving Political Satire is for Lorne Michaels to beat their Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin merchandising into the ground...
Have to admit, they DO manage to break candidates down to a few effective one-line absurdities during a debate year: :)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/239637/saturday-night-live-gop-debate

Now when will Democrats learn how to communicate that they are the party that represents the majority opinion.

"Yes, we need nuclear energy--safer, cleaner nuclear energy."

I agree with you on the first half of that sentence Roger. For the past two years I have been working on my first feature length motion picture which is a documentary on nuclear energy. I have talked, and researched qualified scientists and engineers on the subject and it is abundantly clear that nuclear power is already the cleanest safest energy source known to man. It is only due to the scientific illiteracy of the news media perpetuates unnecessary fear.

Chernobyl was a Generation 1 reactor type a design which is found nowhere outside the former Soviet Union. The reactor core had no containment vessel and the Soviets staffed the reactor with coal miners. The chances of recreating the level of incompetence that lead to the deadliest nuclear reactor accident known to man is almost nil.

As for Three Mile Island. Aside from the economic catastrophe of needing to shelve and clean up an expensive nuclear power plant, the accident harmed nobody. The Journal of Epidemiology, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Carter Administration, and many other trustworthy organizations would agree. In fact the some would say that more people were harmed by the stress created by the unnecessary evacuation and the coal plants that needed to be used in TMI's place.

I do not believe I have enough information to comment on Fukushima but resources I trust say that the situation is under control and that Japan has worse things to worry about in the wake of a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami that has killed thousands and laid waste to coastal infrastructure. With all of the fatal nuclear accident combined the nuclear industry maintains a safety record that even the renewable energy industry envies.

Rod Adams a nuclear engineer I interviewed for the film believes that there are powerful interests who seek to gain from making people believe that nuclear power is dangerous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBif1AidZaA

What we need is cheaper and proportionate nuclear power. As of this moment there are companies such as Hyperion, Babcock & Willcocks, and TerraPower (supported by Bill Gates) working on modular atomic reactors that can be mass-produced and shipped anywhere. One is only left to imagine the possibilities of having such energy density on demand. You could possibly create a service dedicated to providing housing to anyone who needs it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYh7jwPfRd4

You quote statistics but provide no sources for them...I'd be interested in seeing where these "overwhelming majority" numbers in favor of more "liberal" causes is coming from when our country seems to be split pretty evenly down the middle, ideology-wise...

If Republicans really are headed towards "extinction", why are you lamenting it? Jeez, who was it who had their asses handed to them during the 2010 elections? If Republicans don't represent America, why did they pick up some 60 seats in the House??

The "Messiah's" poll numbers are in the can. Obama's poll numbers aren't that higher than Bush's when he was president.

We'll see who is out of touch with America in 2012. Signs are pointing to Obama not winning a 2nd term.

If the Tea Party is such a "fringe" group, why care? If Sarah Palin is such a dunce, why put up the fight?

Also: Michelle Obama is a hypocrite when it comes to eating right. We all know she is eating extravagantly. Look at her BUTT! Every opportunity Barrack gets, he's stuffing his face with with corndogs, nachos, cheeseburgers.

Obama needs to take another vacation. He's been so busy with his 'laser-like focus' on creating jobs (albeit, public sector jobs).

71% of Americans might agree with a tax increase, but 90% of the 20% of Americans that actually get involved and are vocal about this stuff don't, and those are the people that fuel the rhetoric we're hearing. And those are the same people that get mobilized during elections and perpetuate the problems.

I continue to enjoy reading your journal!

It seems to me it's time for the parties to part ways. Let the Teaparty choose its own course and have its own representation separated from the GOP. There's room for more than two parties in politics.

I think its been happening subtly for quite a while. The Republican Party abandoning the middle ground of American opinion, that is. Don't you think?

It's all very true. But the getting to the Republicans as history part seems oh so painful, frivolous and destructive. We may not make it, it too often seems. Ironically, the silent majority so well used by Richard Nixon, now sits by and lets the few radicals on the right keep us from our destiny. When will the get up off the couch and let the future arrive?

Mr. Ebert,

I'm conservative (by its historical meaning, not its current fundamentalist perversion) which means that a good number of my beliefs align with the Republican ideology, but a fair number align, idiosyncratically, with the Democratic.

I fully realize that our president is not some fringe political figure, driving politics in the country in an uncharted direction. In fact, he is practical and pragmatic, almost to a fault.

I abhor (and I don't use that word lightly) the direction that the Tea Party has taken my party of association even though I admire its promotion of active citizen involvement in government. I simply wish it were toward more constructive ends.

Coming from this background, I must ask: to what point and purpose this blog entry? Frustration with the news of the budget? Frustration with Eric Cantor? What incident sets you off on this rather thin assemblage of why the Republicans should shun the Tea Party? (Mind you, I AGREE with the gist; I simply wouldn't publish an argument so thin.) In short, why?

Whatever the case, enjoy reading your writing. Keep up the good work.

P.S. It would be much appreciated if you would direct some ire toward Democrats beyond the variety of "Show some backbone!" Personally, I'm most frustrated by those claiming to be of my own stripe; I expect to be upset by those with whom I disagree.

Steve Wynn, who is not a conservative, and voted for Obama, rebukes Obama...

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/20/steve_wynn_anti_obama_rant

Let's punish those who are responsible for creating jobs with higher taxes! Redistribution of wealth doesn't create wealth.

Oh well, I one of the millions that lives in Obamaville. The Misery Index is the highest it's been in decades. Inflation is through the roof. Unemployment is high.

And our Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat!

Ah.. 'hope', 'change'... Obama's 'Yes We Can' will be 'No We Didn't' after his resounding 2012 presidential election loss.

Roger,

I find it ironic that the Tea Party wing of the GOP you're so quick to react against above actually has a large number of members who imbrace a more libertarian philosophy than the establishment "Reasonable Republicans with a sense of the possible." In fact, the establishment GOP tends much more towards the paternalistic neo-conservative philosophies the most recent Bush presidency.

Certainly the libertarian strain would be more resistent to a couple of your points: redistributive taxation (#1), nationalized healthcare (#2), but would probably fall closer than establishment conservatives to many of the other items you list:

(#3) Church and State - Those who oppose state intervention in education, would also oppose any state attempt to mandate the inclusion of pseudo-science in curricula.

(#4) Gay Rights - It's libertarian-minded republicans that have made possible the recent advances in NY and are working to move the GOP on this issue. In the sense that marriage is a legal contract, it should be one anyone can choose to enter. After all, compared to DOMA and the constitutional ammendment crowd, "states rights" on this issue is a lot more conducive to "gay rights."

(#5) Immigration - Open boarders and a welfare state cannot coexist in any fiscally reasonable way. If citizens are entitled to draw a check from the government, then opening of citizenship to all would be a fiscal disaster. Scale back on government spending though, and you'll find most self-styled "tea partiers" pretty agreeable to free market arguments for the mobility of labor. At heart, classical market liberalism wins out.

(#6) Eco-goodness - This would be a mixed bag. The libertarian wing of the GOP would want to end subsidies across the board (including energy subsidies). This means an end to corporate welfare for big oil, nuclear power, and coporate jets (a very small industry that we're supposed to really dislike now because it sounds like it involves rich people), but also an end to subsidies for ethanol, solar, and other renewables. I guess it's up to you if you consider that closer to your ideal than the neo-conservative corporatism that's pretty much the current status quo.

(#7) Isn't this basically #3?

(#8) Blind partisanship - That's going to pretty much exist with every philosophy and on both sides of the aisle. Agreed that it's lame, no matter what the form.

Given your preferred vision of American government, I completely understand why you find yourself frequently at odds with the GOP. Since you seem to be taking a rooting interest, however, in what is a developing schism between libertarian elements in the party and the neo-conservative establishment, I must admit I'm more then a little suprised to see you appearing to favor the establishment wing.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more.

Roger,

I appreciate what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree with you.

The reality is that the ignorance, hostility, and foolishness of humanity seems to settle at a level far higher than it is right now. And I'm afraid that the "modern" Republican party is taking advantage of that.

I had the misfortune of talking to a hard-right acquaintance the other day and was shocked at the things that came out of her mouth. Among her many misguided beliefs (and I say misguided in the sense that these are things that have been tried in the past and proven not to work) she would consign the poor to the very fate that Dickens railed against - virtual slavery, trapped in debt at poor wages and subsistence conditions forever. She essentially agitated for a return of the feudal system - for citizenship for those who would pay. And her continual wrongness on basic, fundamental facts - the torrent of misinformation and flat-out lies that she spewed regarding everything from historical tax rates to what the founders of this country wrote about - was shocking. The rhetoric was dangerous, eliminationist, and extreme. And this is the backbone of the movement, and they aren't going anywhere.

One other thing that you fail to mention, Roger, is that the Democratic party has completely abandoned being a left-wing party in the slightest and now is basically a mild right-wing party, if not moderate right-wing. Our very own Democratic president has repeatedly expressed rhetoric to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is the supposed left-wing socialist Kenyan, now. And Democrats vote for tax cuts, wars, deregulation, and privatization almost as much as Republicans. For all intents and purposes, the only choice we have as citizenry is how quickly we watch to watch this country descend into a third world banana republic.

It's just so disheartening to me how ignorant people are. I'm sure there will be comments on this article that call you a left-wing liberal chump, and that's sad. There's nothing liberal about looking at third-world hell-holes like Somalia, Morroco, etc. and seeing that their tax rates are incredibly low and that most people live in poverty regardless and saying, "Well it's clearly not low taxes that cause prosperity, so what else can we do here?" It's just pragmatism. If letting millionaires not pay taxes would make the rest of the country rich I would embrace it gladly.

Anyway, thanks for the article. I wish you the best.

Roger,

I agree with the point of your post and with most of the facts as you have posted them. However, there is one point I disagree with. You say

"It is not true that these workers "are taking American jobs," because there seem to be few Americans willing to perform such labor at the prevailing rates. Nor would we be willing to pay the price at the produce counter."

This is the BS line that I have been hearing forever. I do not believe that most of the American public would not pay a little more for food if the people employed made a living wage.

Illegal Immigrants do not do the jobs that Americans do not want to do. They do the jobs that Americans won't do for less than minimum wage and no benefits.

Of course with the war on labor and unemployment benefits, more and more Americans will be competing for these jobs.

All they know is what they hear on FOX News.

If only.

thank you for this refreshing overview...on the subject of the lack of representation for the American people ...who elected a representative government, I could not agree with you more...the other topics are a well worn mantra of the list of who's not listening to the interests of the American public and a reason I believe that the need for recall petitions are essential to the expression of representation.

I don't know. I'm a middle-of-the-road voter, from a Democratic family, that has found myself voting for Republicans often enough. While I agree on many of your points, I don't think that the Democratic party has a monopoly on accuracy or decency. The left wing of the party holds views that are as shameful as those on the right wing of the Republican party.

Creationism is foolishness of course, but if some Democrats had their way, "Social Studies" would do nothing but focus on just how horrible a country the USA is, and how beyond redemption we as a society are. We have our failings, yes, and some people are in fact oppressed, but fewer now than in our past, and compared to other countries, this is in fact a golden land.

I don't have the energy or time to debate anyone on the topic, but I feel like this is more an expression of your wishes, Roger, than an electoral reality. I don't particular care which Party is in power, so long as they represent the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority, with as little nonsense and posturing in the mix as possible.

Thank you.

Roger,

I couldn't have said it better. The GOP is now the party of the ignorant (which includes bigots, since only ignorant people can be bigots) and the selfish. The rich, white, males of the selfish faction has done an outstanding job of marketing to the ignorant faction. "Let's cry guns, religion, abortion and hatred. What a fine following we will gather. They will be too dumb to know we are using them as pawns in our relentless pursuit of more wealth for the wealthy."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But you should brace yourself.

Roger,

I'd like to first preface this by saying that I do, in fact, agree with just about everything you've jotted down here. Perhaps sources ought to have been provided for the statistics you've cited, but otherwise I think you're argument is strong - both concise and rational.

Still, I can't help but cringe when I visit your site and see a new journal post dedicated to issues of this nature. Like most who frequent your site, I do so to benefit from the invaluable insight you provide into film culture. Among your recent journal entries, I found "The Dying of the Light" to be a particularly fascinating one. I even enjoy the journal entries in which you delve into literary issues, or other things of the like. Occasionally, you even write about issues with yourself, often casting them in a humorous light.

Perhaps I am wrong to speak out against your expression of your personal opinions in your journal. God knows I am. I wouldn't bother to do it if it weren't for this one thing that I know (I think you know it just as well, if not better): by this time tomorrow the discussion in the comments section of this journal article will have run itself into it's vociferous, vehement, and ultimately lethargic course.

I enjoy reading Jim Emerson's blog for the discussion that tends to arise following his posts. Your posts possess the ability to do the same, I've seen it happen. It seems as though you haven't embraced that. Instead, your posts are frequently far too polarizing.

All the best from New Jersey,
Matt

Roger, you could not have stated it more eloquently. The fact that these Zealots got elected is a reflection of our inadequate educational system. As you have mentioned before, a good healthy democracy depends on an informed electorate and we have become the opposite of this.

I actually do think that the Republicans want the country to fail so they can blame everything on Barak Obama and win the next election. Also, I don't care what anybody says, but the rise of the Tea Party, and the consistent Republicans opposition to everything Barak Obama says or does is nothing but a form of closeted racism.

Ebert claims he knows no more than what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the tv. I have a suggestion. Try something other than leftist rags like NY Times or the Washington Post; they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. Or something else than NPR; it's a taxpayer-funded leftwing propaganda machine. Or, how about something other than MSNBC; which takes its marching orders from the Obama White House.

I seriously doubt Obama knows more than what is found on tv or in the newspaper. I seriously doubt Obama knows more than what Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Bertha Lewis taught him. Or what he read from Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky.

Bottom line: Obama is a stooge of Soros. If not, a puppet of Big Labor.

Dirty little secret is that businesses are not hiring because they are afraid of Obama regulations.

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." -Paula Kael, as quoted by the New York Times, delivering a lecture Kael gave before the Modern Language Association, 1972

It is very easy to think that people who do not believe as you are on the fringe. I only wish folks on the Left were exposed to ideas from the Right with the same intensity that folks on the Right are exposed to ideas from the Left.

The Left claims to be thoughtful yet from the youngest ages they are taught by teachers from the Left, listen to music from the Left, read books written by the Left, go to colleges that are predominantly Left, and even attend Leftist religious organizations, have only Leftist friends, are only exposed to Leftist ideas, and then call the other side bigoted, or fringe.

"1. Debt and taxation. ..There are two ways to reduce the debt: Cut spending, and raise taxes."

Raising taxes does not necessarily raise revenues. In fact, cutting taxes has the effect of raising revenues. To cite an icon of the Left:

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

The Left religiously refuses to acknowledge that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

"2. Health Care. Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare. We remain the only developed nation in the world without universal health care. Most reasonable people agree the time has come to move in that direction."

Most Americans OPPOSED Obamacare, which is why it was passed through a backdoor measure, using a dead man's vote (the late Ted Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown who was the 60th vote) . . . as Nancy Pelosi said “Let’s remove all doubt, we will have health care — one way or another. . ”

Hardly the support of America. . .

"3. Church and State.They actively believe the church should have a greater role in the state. But not just any church, or all churches -- their church, fundamentalist Christianity."

Not one single mainline evangelical Christian leader (i.e. Pres. of Southern Baptist Convention, etc), not a ONE, has wanted a "greater role in the state" in the sense of controlling government through religious doctrine.

If the question is whether a Baptist man who becomes President should cease believing, I would hope that was answered when a Catholic faced the same bigotry, with accusations that he'd be controlled by the Pope.

"4. Gay Rights. The enormous shift in public opinion on these issues is not reflected by many leading Republicans, who must heed the beliefs of the religious right. "

Note that the enormous shift is on the Left . . . where a candidate Obama was opposed to Gay Marriage, President Obama is in favor of it.

Public Opinion can be easily swayed . . . otherwise there would be a President Hillary right now.

"5. Immigration. Few people have any problem with the immigration of the best and the brightest from India, China and anywhere else in the world. Here the focus is on undocumented aliens from Mexico."

Yes, a nation should allow whomever the nation sees as would best assist that nation, not for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of the nation.

So the best and brightest from India, China, and for that matter, Mexico, are welcome here. . . but illegals who violate immigration law for their own benefit without regard or loyalty to the nation they are sneaking into illegally fall into a different category.

it is why Mexico puts it's military on it's own southern border, to keep out illegal Central Americans that it doesn't want talking jobs that Mexicans won't do.

And it's why our teenage population and our uneducated populations face such high unemployment rates.

Or it could be George W Bush's fault. . .

"6. Energy, the environment and global warming. It is self-evident that we must somehow move away from fossil fuels and foreign oil and put greater resources into alternative sources of energy. This is true whether or not Global Warming is indeed taking place. Yes, we need coal and oil. Yes, we need nuclear energy--safer, cleaner nuclear energy."
And who is it that opposes the opening of any nuclear facility in anyplace where one is suggested? The Left.

"The inexplicable ideological war against the reality of Global Warming is fueled from the right wing and financed primarily by alliances of the traditional energy industries. Al Gore has been demonized for his crusade on the issue. Al Gore is correct. His opponents seem bought and paid for, whether they are aware of this or not."

There is no Global Warming; not in the way you think of it.

"Global Warming" has to fit three categories; the first, that the world is getting warmer, second, that man is the primary cause responsible, and third, that the results will be catastrophic.

So when solar flares cause warmer weather (it is a SOLAR system, after all), that has nothing to do with SUV's.

Al Gore is not demonized. . . he's simply a laughing stock. He reports foolishly over dramatic numbers in an attempt to scare, and when those numbers are proven wrong (as in his 20 foot rise in sea levels being challenged by the IPCC to at most 24 inches).

He makes himself a buffoon.

"7. Education. Most Americans believe their children deserve a sound education free of ideology."
This is sad. Do you think that a free education in New York City is not laced with ideology?

The theory of intelligent design (which is not Creationism no matter how much the Left shouts that it is... good Lord, in 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator. Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA amongst the important reasons for this shift.

Note, it is not belief in the bible of the Old Testament, in Vishnu, or in turtles all the way down. . .

Even Richard Dawkins states that living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".

There are no baptisms or taking of communion involved in explanations of ID.

I'd rather a thinking student who is exposed to the theory of evolution, as well as ID, as well as a study of comparative religions, nutrition and exercise, and the three R's . . . over having school teachers in Atlanta having cheat parties where they modify test answers because they can't teach a Mickey Mouse test.

But they're all ready to teach homosexuality in Kindergarten.

"8. Nutrition. We are a fat nation and getting fatter. Most sensible Americans support Michelle Obama, for example, in her concerns about childhood obesity. That some in the GOP have mocked her is a signal of blind partisanship -- and more than partisanship, fringe ideology, for what sane Republican would disagree with the First Lady?"

Michelle Obama has not supported nutritional training in public schools . . . and no Republican has said that her www.letsmove.gov website is a bad thing (for anyone who's actually read this far, it's worth reviewing).

Physical fitness has LONG been a Republican issue. . . both Bush's were big fitness buff's, and to his credit, Bill Clinton did jog to McDonald's from time to time. . .

But with all the nanny state nonsense coming from the Left, from Pelosi announcing we'd have to pass the health care bill to find out what's in it, to Obama wanting to spread the wealth around, so when she let us know that she hates beets and performs the occasional dietary cleanse (marking the first time we've ever been forced to think about a First Lady’s feces), it seemed a bit much.

And some well deserved mocking was given.

In truth, it is the Left that holds the fringe ideas, but it is the Left that also controls much of what shapes the culture through art, music, and entertainment. It is why movies are made like John Q in support of universal health care . . . or a throwaway line is put in a movie like US Marshals that "health care should be free."

Here's hoping you're right, Roger; I worry, though, about 2012 and one Republican's last chance to slither into the White House and do as much damage as George W. Bush did. Fingers crossed that Obama can pull out a win...

What difference does it make whether a party's views reflect that of a majority of Americans? What matters to each individual is whether a party's views align with that individual's, and each individual has to decide that for themselves.

None of the parties reflect my views. I wonder for how many people that's true?

And there you have it from Robert Ebert on what must be done to save this nation. With all of this well thought advice, one must ask about his qualifications for giving us such ethereal advice.

Well, he is...hmmm, er he is a....well he writes movie reviews as in fiction. That seems like the necessary bona fide to offer such an opinion does it not?

The problem, as I see it, is that Barack Obama is doing a good job.

The Republicans need to raise some kind of issue, valid or not, as an excuse to vote Obama out of the White House and replace him with a Republican.

Given those stipulations, nothing the Republicans have done is... unexpected. Sure, it would be more honest to simply say Obama is doing it right, but they're not that honest.

I agree with most of your article. I do think that the republicans are painting themselves into a corner by taking the wrong side of too many arguments simply for political reasons. Then again, democrats aren't always showing enough spine for my taste either.

It's extremely self-destructive to oppose genuine social improvements on the basis of short-term political goals. Then again, politicians rarely make considerations beyond the next election, and unfortunately, democrats can be guilty of that as well.

The end of the Cold War was SUPPOSED to mean no more arms race. People were ecstatic when the Berlin Wall came down. Even Reagan, that icon of Republicanism, wanted to get rid of Nuclear weapons. It never happened. Why can't politicians get some actual backbone and cut back on defense? I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats -- I blame them both.

Instead, Republicans want to cut social programs like Planned Parenthood (which saves lives, despite the Republican smear campaign against them). Even a devout right-to-lifer, given the facts, should support Planned Parenthood, for its life-saving efforts. But instead of giving the facts, all we hear on the news are the sound bites.

Democracy in our country is not dead, but it certainly is hurting by all the abuse it's taking. What happened to everyone being equal? But apparently corporations are more 'equal' than individuals. Apparently religious considerations trumps truth. Inciting people's anger and irrationality is much more of an effective political tool than actually informing people of the truth so that they can vote in their own self-interest.

People have to always remember that, traditionally, the press has not been there to educate, but to sell. Yes, there have been exceptions -- I have a lot of respect for some journalists. But the traditional role of the press has been to sell, whether it's wars, or real estate or a particular candidate.

So it's not just Republicans. There's a lot of blame to go around.

I find it interesting that whenever the Democrats move to center (that is- to the RIGHT), they win elections. When Republicans move to the left- they LOSE elections. When Dems campaign as centrists, and not as liberals, they win (of course after they win, they head hard left). If McCain campaigned as a conservative, he'd president of the USA right now. Conservatism wins every time.

You don't have to have big brains to be a liberal. As long as you have a 'big heart', liberalism is easy. Leave the brains to the conservatives.

You conflate an increase in tax rates with an increase in tax revenues. Here both Charlie Gibson and Candidate Obama acknowledge that decreases in tax rates on capital gains have historically led to higher, not lower, tax revenues. But Obama rejects the win-win of lower tax rates and higher tax revenues out of a sense of fairness. What a guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

This reminds me, I don't think I've ever heard about Siskel's political opinions. I know you and Roeper were always very like-minded and talked politics a lot. What about you and Gene?

Bravo Roger for this succinct, non-partisan description of some of the major failings of the Republican party in it's current incarnation. I wish I could say I agree with you that it is moving away from the mainstream. Instead, I fear that a large portion of the electorate actually agrees with and supports these stances. How else can you explain them? If the majority of Americans disagreed, surely the Republicans would not hold a majority in the House, would not have nearly so many seats in the Senate or in state governments, and would be the laughing stock of evening news and the water cooler. Instead, their often lunatic ideas are treated as equal to those of the left, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary. Indeed, unless the Democrats and the aptly named (but for the exact wrong reason) lame stream media begin loudly and continuously denouncing the lunatic right, I fear it may be too late to stop them from taking over at every level of government. The Repubs seem to be following that old maxim that it doesn't matter if what you say is true, if you say it often enough and loudly enough it will take root and become the common wisdom. And it seems to be working.

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus, God, or Allah, or whatever one calls the supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." - Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, 16 Sept. 1981.

Once upon time, being a conservative in America meant you were like Goldwater or Jimmy Stewart or someone like that. Ie: conservative didn't mean wing-nuts like Sarah Palin or The Tea Party.

Meanwhile across the pond, the Brits have had enough and heads are rolling now. Not even the Prime Minister's job is safe. And all in the wake of Rupert Murdock's empire thinking itself too powerful to sink. Meaning..?

The Tea Party is going to sink the Republican Party if it's not careful - and America needs conservative voices as much as liberals ones. Together, they off-set one another; Ying and Yang and all that. And help maintain a system of checks and balances.

Besides, I liked Jimmy Stewart, dammit. Even though he wasn't the sort of guy you'd party with - I doubt he would have enjoyed "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" - but that doesn't mean you couldn't have him for a neighbor. Just keep the music down, don't blow smoke over the fence and you'll get along just fine.

I find it absolutely amazing how far Americans will go to rationalize their illegal immigration problem. No excuse is too illogical or preposterous. And what it all comes down to is that they just want a permanent, dysfunctional underclass so they can buy fruits a little cheaper and get their houses built a little cheaper, long-term consequences be damned. I bet those same people will still complain about foreign sweat shops, though. Or the supposed oil grab in Iraq.

Your economy does not need illegals any more than the economies of other developed nations need illegals.

Shut up Roger,

1: That balanced budget in the Clinton years was thanks to the Republican majority. Surely a well educated man such as yourself realizes the real power when coming to financing of the nation is in Congress. So those famous midterms in 2006, when the Dems guaranteed everything would perfect now, seems kind of silly in retrospect.

Which is what has Republicans upset. They know it'll be disaster to not raise the debt limit, however they want to make sure they don't have to again. Because honestly, the famous line when Obama wanted the Stimulus Package was "I inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit." Wait a minute, hasn't he more than quadrupled that in less than a term?

Now, I'm not saying I know as a fact that what the Republicans want will work. But I sure as hell know that what we do every other time we reach the ceiling (raise it) has never worked. Because that is all we do, raise it. We don't try to cut back on what we offer. Are they great things? Yes. But if I have to choose between defaulting the national debt, raising a buncha' taxes, or losing the national parks (which I love), I'd let the parks go. Thats just me. Besides, there are lots of other things of less value to be cut, I just pulled that example out of nowhere.

2: I'd say its about mixed as to those who oppose Obamainsurance and those who support Obamainsurance.

3: I'll give you that. I never cared much for some of that rhetoric.

4: But in terms of legislation on a National level, what Democrats are any different? I've heard more (without being questioned) of gay rights from Laura Bush and Dick Cheney then I ever had from Obama. And it pissed me off a few weeks ago when Obama flew in a few days before the vote to act like he had any damn thing to do with its passing.

5: I don't see how you can have a problem with me having a problem with someone coming into the country illegally. This doesn't make them bad people but why is it so damn hard to come into this country legally? The common liberal response is, because the system is too hard. To that I say, fix the system.

6: I agree.

7: I don't see why they can't.

8: You're just paying attention to the ugly side and pundits. If we're looking at lawmakers there is no problem here.

Just because the GOP has some bigot like Bachmann in our ranks, doesn't mean we're all that disturbing. You don't see me calling you a scumbag because Weiner is a democrat. You don't see me calling you corrupt because Blagoavitch is a democrat. You don't see me calling you a racist because Reid is a democrat. You don't see me calling you a liar because democrats are democrats (I kid, I kid). The point is, there are plenty of crazy nuts in the Republican party, and plenty of loonies in with the Democrats. I know thats not the point of the article, its just always nice to point that out.

Roger,

As always when I read your political columns, I am suspicious of how much time you spend researching your claims.

In your first point (Debt and taxation), you claim that 71% of Americans agree that taxes should be increased. No citation. I suspect you are getting your source from the President, except he claims 80% of Americans want tax increases. This claim has been thoroughly debunked here:
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/07/15/where-obamas-80-who-want-tax-increases-came-from/

You are correct that the Tea Party loathes tax increases. George W. Bush started an orgy of spending; incredibly, Obama is even worse. Obama is spending an average of $1 trillion more per year than Bush's bloated budgets.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

We have had 10 years of unrestrained spending. There is plenty of bloat to cut in the budget, and I agree that the defense budget needs cutting as well. The Republicans were elected in 2010 by the public to oppose Democratic spending, and Obamacare. This is why a Republican took over Edward Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. House Republicans fear they will not be re-elected if they vote for tax increases, something that they pledged not to do. I think they know their constituents' opinions better than you do, especially since they are getting flooded with calls.

In your second point (Health Care), you claim, again without attribution: "Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare." ABC news disagrees with you: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html.

I suspect you can find plenty of Massachusetts residents, not just Republicans, who are against their state's health care plan. The plan is costing more than anticipated (what a surprise): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

The Massachusetts plan, almost identical to what Obamacare will be like (unless the Supreme Court strikes it down for the un-Constitutional abomination that it is), failed to control costs, and rewarded people for working less and earning less.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

I have objections to other portions of your essay, but I will stop here for now, to see what evidence you can offer to counter my arguments.

"Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare."

Uhh, no:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/09/healthcare.pdf

I like and agree with every point you have made. I wish our nation was more secular and had fewer crazy people who think that it is they alone who really know God's true will. I would give God more credit than this. If the Republican mindset is God's will, there cannot be a God. Why is it that so many people, who claim to know what God wants, are closed-minded?

Also, as you stated, many Republicans think the government should stay out of their life. Yet, they want government to control/limit drugs, sex, abortion, gay rights, unions, and to prevent the economically poor from uprising. They believe that people should be left to make the "right" decisions on their own. But, it seems that they only believe this when people come to the decisions that they see fit. In other words, anyone who thinks and acts as they do should be left alone. Anyone who thinks and acts differently should be controlled and limited in their actions. It should be complete freedom for pure-Christian Republicans and state-mandated oppression for everyone else. This is their idea of freedom--a police state that enforces purity upon the sinners.

Their confidence in knowing what God wants blinds them to the realities that millions of people suffer through each day. One public school may have tons of resources and support. Another is a broken war-zone. Many children grow up in very dangerous conditions, with little hope of escape.

The WASP religious and social mind-set that dominated our nation for so long is incapable of addressing or solving all of the real problems that so many have to survive in this nation. In fact, these mindsets have fostered the conditions in which this injustice has flourished. As the demographics of this nation continue to change, old WASP ideals will need to change with it.

If everyone could just see through the fog of religion, if even for a little while, we could actually come together to fix real problems that real people face in reality. The Republican Party will fail because it is unable to solve problems that matter to most Americans.

It just makes no sense that the Republicans - long thought of as the party of Darwinian realism, tough geopolitical "truths", little-guy-on-the-bottom politics - are the ones who have to cater to the religious right. These groups should have nothing in common.

Christ: "Love your brother"
Republican credo (seemingly) "Fuck you, fuck the world we stand on, fuck your children and mine, as long as I have the most material wealth. Oh, and if it was good enough for Dad, its good enough for me, even if my dad was an overbearing asshole..."

Doesn't quite fit, does it?

Good luck Roger. Better have some poll and survey results at your fingertips, because you're about to get up to your armpits in more trolls than the battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings.

By the way, I am never less than impressed with how you deal politely with those who violently disagree with you. The tendency with the internet, minus facial cues, tone of voice, or simply someone else sitting in front of you, is to let rip and insult your opponents. Unlike snail mail, there is no longer the walk to the post box to make you think it over either. How do you do it?
And please, keep at it!

PS Although your website doesn't seem to like my post links, if you go to the "Cross-country comparison" subheading of Wikipedia's page on "Health Care system", you find the US paying around 2.5 times as much money for health care as comparable countries, while achieving worse coverage and results. After having had a few copays recently in the US, I can speak from the sharp end. And it ain't cheap.

I agree with everything you say here, Roger.

Also, you should change Freddie Mae to Freddie Mac.

As more once-economically-sound Americans find out just how cruel and harsh life in this nation can be, primitive Republican theories of economics will become a tougher sell. In time, there will not be enough buyers/suckers to fall for it anymore. By 2040, The Republican Party will be gasping for its last breaths, if it is still breathing at all.

I never expected the Green party to be the ones to make a dent in the two-party duopoly. We have a chance to send a message to the system - and we send these Tea-Bagger idiots? Why do the people gravitate towards the absolute worst that our country has to offer in terms of leadership and ideas?

Why do we ignore the voices of progress and truth, yet find ourselves all too willing to hand over our power as a public, willingly and vocally, to the already powerful? Are we as a people really that stupid, or do we really aspire to be tools of corporate America?

Some conservatives believe that we have a liberal media. The reality is that the media exists largely to promote agendas forwarded by the wealthiest class and the market forces—it is owned by them. If the media were truly liberal, we would see and read many more stories about the warzone neighborhoods and schools that many children exist in. A liberal media would make child poverty its main focus—no doubt. At-risk children are mainly only depicted as criminals and murder victims in our mass media. Their stories are silenced as if they are not even real. This is a product of our conservative media.

As more once-economically-sound Americans find out just how cruel and harsh life in this nation can be, primitive Republican theories of economics will become a tougher sell. In time, there will not be enough buyers/suckers to fall for it anymore. By 2040, the Republican Party will be gasping for its last breaths, if it is still breathing at all. Upon its death, the needs of the people will finally take center stage.

You always mention kooky Republican and religious stuff in the classroom when talking about education. But what about garbage like "Flocabulary" (which is in urban public schools and "teaches" history through rapping--and has lots of product placement and ebonics in it?) It's a proven failure, but public schools keep instituting it anyway. Flocabulary was perpetrated by white liberals, naturally. Just remember there are morons on both sides of the aisle.

As for Republicans being "over," just remember Fukuyama's declaration about the late 1980's marking "The End of History" (and the supremacy of liberal humanism).... and then just a few years later Sept. 11th occurred, proving him totally wrong....

As soon as this country is under threat from some outside force, we'll be back to waving flags, voting Republican, and going to war again!

Here we go. Republicans are "anti-science", "anti-nature", "anti-woman" (never mind the misogynists are on the left when you see how Michelle Bachmann, Sara Palin, etc. are being attacked), "anti-gay", "anti-senior citizen", etc. etc. etc. Ebert has borrowed a page from the Democrat 50 year old playbook.

Isn't it convenient for the alarmists to push the "global warming" nonsense during the hottest month of the year??

Here's the Democratic list -

1) Enabling every item from 1-10 on Roger's Republican list. Being Republican-lite, because they're also true believers in the market solution, the same "invisible hand" bullshit that the Republicans believe in. Lacking the balls to support gay marriage because they don't want to alienate the ignorant. Enabling illegal invasions because they lack the testicular fortitude to take on the military-industrial complex because they don't want to be seen as weak on defense. Negotiating from the right on every issue, then allowing Republicans to push the agenda even further to the right until it's pointless to even call it "negotiating". Being spine-less bureaucrats. Pussies. Wimps. Willing accomplices of the corporate agenda.

Roger, good post. Thank you. One small quibble. I think your essay suggests, intentionally or not, that the Tea Party has a monopoly on anti-taxation fanaticism, while minimizing the responsibility of other republicans. From what I've read Grover Norquist with his Americans for Tax Reform tries to make all republican legislators sign a no tax pledge, and most do, making the refusal to raise taxes a republican dogma. What reasonable republicans are you referring to? (I thought your readers would be interested in this great recent piece on Norquist and his influence from the NYRB: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jul/14/edmund-burke-vs-grover-norquist/)

Hey Roger,

The Republicans didn't win the HISTORIC, LANDSLIDE victory in 2010 by being "out of touch" with America...!!!

Obama owns the liberal media. The polls you cite can be easily skewed. Anything from CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Reuters, AP, CNN, is suspect.

I said at the time that it cannot be a good idea to finance two wars off the books. we should have paid for them at the time. Fiscally irresponsible.

(Never mind that I opposed the Iraq war; I also felt that if we were gonna fight it, we should pay for it.)

Roger, your journal has the best comments - I love all the varied opinions and fevered debate. It's exciting and the reason why my heart beats a little faster when I see a new Rog posting, knowing all those letters to follow will be rife with different thoughts, opinions and political ideologies. My only issue with letter writers are the ones of a contrary political stripe than yours, Roger, who, rather than debate you, diminish you as “merely a film critic" who should "stick with what he knows," as if because you're famous your opinion shouldn't be as valid as any other concerned, politically aware American.

What's wrong with hating Obama? I guess if you hate Obama, you're racist. Think of the hate Bush, Palin, and Bachmann has endured. Obama can't stand up to criticism. Obama has a thin skin.

Obama's definition of "leadership" is to vote 'present'.

It's okay to burn Bush in effigy. Try doing that to Obama and see if you get called a racist.

Furthermore, I fear FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM more than I do fundamentalist Christianity.

Obama is a joke. He's a man-child. He'll be a one term president.

Liberal Democrats are aborting their own constituents out of existence.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it seems to me that the fringe right does a great service to Republicans as a whole that Democrats, so far, have been too scrupulous to duplicate. They skew the average by pushing the right edge further and further right, so when the mainstream or politicians on the left seek to "meet in the middle" the middle is now the right in disguise. When factions do try to pass legislation that used to be considered moderate, they can now point at it and call it facilitating the liberal agenda. The tea party progresses republican agendas very well, it just does so in a backhanded way.

So, basically, the Dems have the corner on what Americans want? Please - an equal list of off-in-left-field issues could be published about the Democrat party. Will you, in the interest of balance, create such a list?

Mr. Ebert,

I would like to start by saying that I have been a big fan of your movie analysis and writing for many years. I have read many of your blog entries as well and I usually disagree with you on most political issues. You see, I am the person you are speaking about above when you mention the Tea Party and their positions. I am not what many would characterize as a Tea Party person, because I am only in my 20s, I come from a very humble working class background, and I am not racist. Aside from my age, being working class and NOT racist are the norm for most Tea Partiers. My faith as a conservative, you would say fundamentalist, Christian are what drives me to the positions of the Tea Party and you seem to acknowledge that more than once in your blog. Since you took the time to analyze some of the major political issues of the day, I am going to return the favor or helping you to understand the opposite point of view. I hope you will take the time to respond. I believe that civil and intellectual discourse is the best way to find common ground or at least a better understanding of those with whom we disagree. I will now follow your order of topics.

1. Debt and taxation. The reason increased taxes on the rich are not supported by me and other like-minded people is because at some point, we have to decide what amount of income is fair to tax. When you combine all the taxes, rich people are currently paying close to half of their income. I would not want to have that taken away from me should I ever be able to increase my income above $250,000 a year. I would support getting rid of loop holes that allow some rich people and more often, corporations from paying any taxes. The reasons these exist is corruption in both parties. GM and Obama's citing them as an example to American businesses when they spent millions on lawyers to help them avoid paying ANY taxes is a perfect example of this. Making sure the rich who are not paying their fair share along with cutting spending is the way to bring down the debt and save our economy instead of making sure the rich who are paying their fair share already, have to pay even more.

2. Healthcare. I am one who recently had to make some cuts in my family's budget in order to add my children, who had to go without healthcare for a year, onto my employer's insurance. I would like to see Healthcare costs decreased. It seems to me that allowing competition, which has been highly restricted by the government, would decrease cost greater than anything the same way it does for just about any market. Anybody else enjoying paying 99 cents a night for movies instead of $5 for three nights when you only need one night anyways? Thank you Redbox and competition! Universal Healthcare, run by the government, has been a failure in EVERY nation for which it has been deployed. Romenycare is not as popular as you are making out and it is has not had adequate enough time to reach the low level of service as other government run systems. Do we really believe that we have the resources to offer everyone in the nation the same level of medical services that we offer now to the majority? Quality will come down as soon as those working within the system are working for the government and not for a profit. We have the best system in the world, so lets find a way to offer it to more people by lowering the cost and making it for affordable to those who truly want it.

3. Church and State. I seem to recall you professing to be a Christian, yet you seem to be angry at those who claim to believe what The Bible tells us to be true. If you do not believe in The Bible, then why profess to be a Christian, because you have no basis for your faith? If God did not create the world then who did? Do you believe in another God or is Evolution more of a God to you then a theory? I ask this respectfully, because it seems like common sense that believers in God would also believe he created it and want it taught at least as a theory if not as absolute truth. Yet Evolution, by which Darwin said would be proven untrue if a transitional fossil is never discovered, is supposed to be taught as a scientific absolute? It is called the "missing link" for a reason, it is still missing! Even if Evolution is true, it stands to reason that a Christian would assume it was God's way of creating different species and therefore, both Creationism and Evolution should be taught. However, it is only a hostile nature that is shown by you toward Creationism and many other liberals who confess to believe in a God who they don't want children to hear about when it comes to how the planet and universe were formed. Where is the sound logic?

4. Gay Rights. I will tread lightly here just as you did, because this is such a touchy subject. Just because public opinion on a topic shifts in a different direction, does not mean the past popular position is no longer valid or correct. It may mean that the new popular position should be considered more closely, as it has been quite often the past decade, but it majority opinion is not always right by default. How many groups of people have been slaughtered because popular opinion in their region regarded them as being less than deserving to live? If people who support your definition of gay rights deserve to be represented, then so do people who have a differing opinion of what constitutes actual rights and what is in return infringing upon their own rights.

5. Your point about people not having a problem with immigrants from other regions of the world aside from Mexico is absurd and hints toward racism of those who have an opposite viewpoint. Any rational thinking person can figure out that the reason Mexican immigration is THE issue is because they are the ones coming into our country illegally. If Canadians, started crossing the northern border by the millions, then you would be claiming discrimination against them as well. We, nor any nation in the world, can allow for millions upon millions of people to just come across the border and reap the benefits of our very generous entitlement programs. You want to talk about the debt being a problem? Lets just give everyone who can get here free healthcare and education and we will see how long our financial stability holds up.

6. Energy, the environment, and global warming. Here you are telling us, just as Al Gore has, "Case closed!" Global warming is real and we have to act like it in every facet of our lives and environment policy. You say that his opponents are all bought and paid for, meanwhile he has made hundreds of millions based on his own declarations about global warming and stands to make billions if the policies that he advocates for are every put into place. Come on Roger? Are you so blinded by your own ideology that you can't see the hypocrisy in this statement about Al Gore and his opponents? Of course his opponents are going to be well funded when they are from the energy business sector, but that does not make them any more wrong than Al Gore who also has financial motivations. Plus, his movie was filled with inaccuracies and giving him the title of being correct is a factual error in of itself.

7. Education. Liberals and the Democratic Party have a monopoly on control of the educational system. A system that by all standards and measurements is failing, falling behind the rest of the world and even behind independently run schools in the same neighborhoods. Yet, your complaint again comes back to the fact that some of us, myself included, would like Creation to be taught alongside Evolution as a theory. Is that what is really wrong with our education system? Will teaching Evolution alone as has been done for many years already going to fill everything? Take ownership of the fact that those with who you cast your lot intellectually and politically have failed at education our children and stop pointing a finger at the only thing you can, a minor curriculum dispute.

8. Nutrition. I understand that your more recent health problems have resulted in your having to adapt a more nutritionally-balanced diet. This is the area I will most agree with you, because The First Lady's efforts to increase awareness of our nation's health/obesity problem is to be commended and some that argue against her are doing so for ideological reasons. However, the many complaints are directed at liberal politicians calling for policies, enforced by the government, to address this problem that infringe upon American's rights. Most Americans do not want to be told what to eat and when. They certainly do not want penalties imposed upon them for being overweight. If Michelle Obama makes sure our schools offer healthier choices, then great! If she wants to make sure I buy more fruits and vegetables than junk food on my next visit to the grocery store, she is going to far.

9. Financial Reform. Your analysis here is the most blatantly partisan and wrong. You say that most Republicans (and some Democrats) were against regulating Freddie and Fannie Mae. What a misstatement! Those two government agencies have been overwhelmingly run by Democrats since their inceptions. It was this coupled with the liberal mindset to force banks to offer loans to low-income families that resulted in this disaster. I could not afford to buy home back in 2004, when I got married, but I was told by the banks that I could. I decided against it and I did not take advantage of the flawed system, but not out of a societal responsibility, but rather I knew I could not pay. The banks knew that I and many others who did take loans could not afford them, but they did not care because it was a big shell game scam of getting paid and passing along the defaulted loans around until the system collapsed. Then they got bailed out. If you do some research, you will see where President Bush and Congressional Republicans pushed for reform of these agencies, but were meant with fierce opposition by Democrats. There is nobody to blame here politically except the Democrats, but I am sure there are plenty of greedy citizens who affiliate themselves with both parties that are also responsible.

10. Consumer Protection. Liberals love to rightly vilify governmental agencies when they unfairly side with a large special interest group to drown out the business or point of view of less represented/not as well-funded individuals. We often see this when it comes to farming and the food industry such as those instances shown in the documentary "Film Inc." Yet, here you are calling for a new agency that will no doubt pick winners and losers and just like in other industries, keep out some of the better and cheaper options consumers would otherwise pick for themselves. Sure there are consequences of not having as much oversight, but the negatives far outweigh the positives as evidence in other highly-regulated industries have shown us.

Well, Mr. Ebert, there you have it: My differing opinions that are not based in some far-right ideology, but rather my own intellectual analysis of facts and yes, a faith that we both claim to share. I hope you will take a little time to respond to at least some of my points as I have seen you generously take the time to address comments in your previous blog entries. Even if you do not, I hope you will question your overall thesis that the Tea Party's stances on issues are based in nothing but ideology when the left is at least just as guilty. If the far-right is a threat based on wanting lower taxes, equal rights for homosexuals but maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, regulation where it makes sense and less regulation where it will stifle freedom of choice, an educational system that supplies both sides to an argument and not just the one they agree with most, immigration that is regulated like every other nation in the world tries to have, and to maintain the best health care system in the world, then I guess you are threatened by common sense and reasonable positioning. Take a look at what the far left wants and it is a much scary scenario.

Global Warming is a loaded term. It annoys me to no end that it is still used. Global Warming as it was originally defined, is somewhat of a ruse. I suggest you adopt Climate Change. Global Warming and Climate Change are not interchangeable. As soon as opponents of "Global Warming" learn that melting Ice Caps lower the temperature of the surrounding sea, however slightly and however briefly, we lose. Climate Change, please. Science cannot be just one step ahead, but must sit firmly at the finish line while everyone else catches up.

Roger, I am so glad that you wrote this post. We needed this one to hash out, and you started us off in a fine fashion with an excellent article, as always.

The demise of the GOP has been predicted often enough, most notably right before they kicked Democrat posterior in a sizeable rout in our most recent national election. Call up Nancy Pelosi and ask her how dead the Republicans are.

It's quite the opposite, actually. Sheer delusion continues to be exhibited on the left half of the aisle. The left learned absolutely zero lessons from the lesson the American electorate handed them in November 2010, preferring to double-down on foolish policy.

We are at the point right now where the country is divided into two groups, and it's not Democrats and Republicans.

On one side are people who understand that the country is deep existential financial jeopardy and that the United States of America is at risk of an economic collapse.

On the other side are the debt deniers. Those who believe that we can keep going merrily on the way of profligate overspending and foolish rates of borrowing and all it takes is a little tweak in the tax rate and we're solid.

If you believed, as I do, that we significantly at risk of economic collapse then this would not be your top 10 list. Simple as that.

You continue, in my opinion, to misunderstand the Tea Party. Might I suggest that you read a concise and excellent book by Senator Rand Paul newly out now called "The Tea Party Goes to Washington". It's compelling. It's a great insight to the Tea Party. But, I'm guessing that NO ONE from the left in these comments will read it. Better to keep your caricature of the Tea Party in place. (And while you guys are not reading it, please continue to call the right-wingers uninformed. Makes me laugh every time.)

On to the ten points...

I like you, Mr. Ebert. You are a good movie critic. But you don't know beans about economics or the history and failure of big government. The tea party is closer to the truth on this than you will ever be. Raising taxes, when taxes are already outrageous, will NOT increase revenue...it will simply change behavior. But the fact that you advocate raising taxes shows that you don't understand the true and proper purpose of government. Ditto for your support of government health care.

Agreed, but are you sure that there are 2 L's in Michele Bachmann's first name? Watch out! She may start spelling your first name "Rodger" from now on! ;-)

I'm politically naive but I've watched the human race with great interest for the last 58 years and I've noticed that most of us seem to think everything culminates in NOW. (It's hard to put into words; bear with me while I try to at least render the flavor of the idea.) It's as if, in our minds, all time has led to this moment and no moment but this very one. This is the moment in which conclusions can be drawn because all prior moments are over now and here we are in ... the most recent, modern time of all. History is no longer in flux. It's all been done and here we are. What is true now must be profoundly true, yes?, given that all time has led to this moment, in which it is true?

And then the globe goes around the sun again and sometimes even before we've made a full circuit the enemy is in clover and what was up is down. I believe we'll see the Republicans for a long, long time, even after we non-Republican individuals are no longer here to gaze upon the present instant and call it the very best place from which to view history. They are our other half. We will never be free of them.

LOL!

I see that the Sun Times has converted Ebert from writing leftist movie review drivel that no one pays any attention to anymore to writing leftist political drivel that's going to get about the same amount of notice.

I'm not going to comment on the post (though I mostly agree), but on the statement that we only know what we hear from the news. The natural tendency of humans to read about things that they agree with over those that the don't is being amplified by "filter bubbles" on the net. Here's a good TED Talk about it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

Right on, Roger. I agree with 99% of what you said here, admire you for having the ongoing courage to speak your mind, and thank you for your forum here. This is THE best American site on the Internet, bar none. Even the majority of those who disagree with you do so in a civil manner.

Roger, I think for the sake of people who don't know what Global Warming is, and in the spirit of increasing awareness, we all should discontinue the term. For instance, Bill Maher has begun referring to this reality only as "Climate Change."

Many Republicans (because, really, not all Republicans deny climate change, but if you deny climate change you're probably a Republican) say things like, "How could the overall temperature of the Earth be increasing? New York has had more snow this year than it has had in decades!" Which, of course, does nothing to prove that the MEAN of the Earth's temperature is changing.

So I think you should hop on Maher's bandwagon.

Roger,

As Ronald Reagan said: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Looking forward to your next movie review.

A Fan

Hi Roger. On point 1: Debt and Taxation

There is no doubt we must contain, restrain and begin to pay down the National Debt.

Actually, there is quite a bit of doubt. Doubt cast by Democrats who are fighting tooth and nail against spending cuts. Who are saying "debt, what debt?". Who are saying "we're not broke". Who craft 10-year "deficit reduction plans" that don't begin to really cut the deficit until years 8, 9, and 10 when they will NEVER happen. By observing their actions, I would say that many Democrats deeply doubt that we must constrain the debt.

Begin to pay down the National debt? Too late. We are past the tipping point where we have any hope of paying off the National Debt, let alone paying it "down". We are at the point where we are in a losing battle just to service the interest on the National Debt. a losing battle. Why don't more people get that?

The Tea Party is fanatically opposed to increasing taxes.

Yes. Yes I am. No more money confiscated in taxes by the same federal government that has shown itself to recklessly irresponsible with the money it currently has. Any new revenues will be OVERSPENT to new levels of debt. Why don't more people get that?

There are two ways to reduce the debt: Cut spending, and raise taxes. The Tea Party would permit only one of these. Reasonable Republicans agree, but their hands are tied by their need to placate the radicals.

Radicals? Cut, Cap, and Balance is radical? To cut spending from its current profligate and unsustainable levels is radical? To cap spending toward a balanced budget is radical? To have a requirement for a balanced budget is radical? Only in a socialist / statist framework are those things radical.

Reasonable Republicans? Please. By that you mean Republicans who like to be loved by liberal media and who basically agree with you. By "reasonable", you mean statist Republicans who will collude with Democrats in the generational theft that is going on in the halls of Congress each and every year and either party's administration. That's reasonable to you. Not to me. The reasonable ones are the ones who are trying to stop the spending & borrowing madness that will bankrupt this country.

So imgine this scenario. Imagine that you've sent your kid off to college. You put the amount of his tuition/board into an account for him to pay them. You give him a monthly allowance for spending money. You give him a credit card for emergencies. Then, kid calls you and says: I spent them tuition money on partying and put an IOU in the account. I overspend my allowance each month by 1/3. I maxed out the credit card.

Would you then authorize an increase in his credit card limit, increase his allowance, and ignore the empty tuition account? Is it "reasonable" to take those actions? No. That irresponsible kid is our Federal Government. Cut him off, and limit the fiancial damage.

There is also the curious refusal to raise taxes for the rich, who would best afford to pay them.

Liberal act like the rich pay no taxes at all. Of course they could best afford them. That's why they pay most of the Trillions in taxes that our government collects. You linked an article this week that said the top 1% has 40% of the wealth in this country! Guess what, that 1% also pays about 40% of the taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of the taxes!

They could best afford to pay them. They can also best afford to avoid them. Just because you raise the tax RATE doesn't mean you're going to get all of the revenue that you think you're going to get. You're making it worthwhile for them to hide more money.

It's just more class warfare.

Bottom line: the Federal Government has recklessly spent way too much money, taking way too much money out of the private economy where it needs to be for job growth. The Bush admin spent way too much in it's quest to be "compassionate" conservatives (read: liked by liberals) and nation builders. And the obama admin has spent radically even more than that - presenting a current year budget that is ONE THIRD DEFICIT! Instead of being embarrassed by that and realizing their error and constraining the spending back in - the ideologicals horrors! - they want to keep taxing and keep spending and keep borrowing.

That's the radical position. And I stand with the Tea Party in opposing it.

"9. Hatred of President Obama.

It seems as if the right-wing Republicans (and really, in 2011, is there any other kind?) are willing to crash the entire U.S. economy (maybe the world economy?) in order to bring the president down."

In response to the IDIOT that wrote that, it wasn't like leftwing Democrats didn't try to secure America's defeat in Iraq in hopes of bringing George W. Bush down. Just sayin'.

On point 2: Healthcare

Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare.

Um, no. Recent CNN poll has ObamaCare at 37% in favor, 59% opposed. Not a majority in favor. http://bit.ly/hjYr45

Rasmussen has 54% favoring repeal of ObamaCare.

Team Obama / Pelosi took a good health care system where 85% liked their current plan and broke it. Badly. It has the potential to both provide us worse care and bankrupt us. Thanks.

How can you look at the current programs that the government runs, like Social Security and Medicare, and say gimme more of that with healthcare?

Did you notice Obama inadvertently admitting this week that not only is the Social Security Trust Fund a giant ponzi scheme lie that is completely empty, but we are BORROWING to pay current Social Security payments? Yeah, he did. It was when he was trying to scare seniors that he might not be able to send them their checks unless he got a deal on raising the debt limit? Why would you not be able to send out checks if there was money in the Trust Fund? (Because there is no money in the Trust Fund, just worthless IOUs). Why would you need to raise the debt ceiling to pay next months checks? Because we have to borrow huge amount of money to make those payments. It is the very definition of insolvency. I don't think Obama meant to say that out loud.

Yet, you want to give the same government that is running an insolvent Ponzi scheme the keys to solely running our health care system.

Not only no. Hell no.

"Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare."

No, most people oppose Obamacare. Don't take my word for it, here are the polls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

Support for Obamacare is currently averaging 37%.

So I guess your top 10 is an unbiased look at what you think of the Repulican party. I'm assuming you're not going to make a top 10 list of things you don't like about Democrats. Oh yeah, the Democrats are virtually perfect. Everything they do is wonderful. The economy must be doing great right now in America. Obama must have made lots of great innovative changes that used outside the box, visionary thinking. Oh wait...nevermind.

3. Church and State

Not an issue for 2012. Talk about a bogeyman. There are no influential preachers on the right that are influencing the issues or the campaigns. Stop spending. That's the issue.

The only genuflecting to church and state that I see is happening on the left. Why did the new Police Superintendent of Chicago feel the need to go genuflect to radical-leftist Father Pfleger's church with his gun-laws-are-racist pandering?

So some conservatives are Christians. They are allowed to be. They have as much right to be influenced by their core values as the leftist/secular/socialists do. The left is just as fervent in promulgating their ideologies as policy. You just like that policy, and are okay with that.

4. Gay Rights

Despite the dogma of the Tea Party that the government must not invade our private lives, they have no hesitation in dictating what we may do between the sheets.

Really? Where is that Tea Party dogma? Show me a link.

Stop spending us into bankruptcy - that's Tea Party Dogma. Taxed. Enough. Already.

5. Immigration

Here the focus is on undocumented aliens from Mexico.

Enough with the "undocumented" euphemism. Illegal. We're against illegal immigration, from whereever. Legal immigration strengthens us - because we get to choose the best and the brightest - and illegal immigration strains us.

It's not just Mexico. Many people here illegally overstayed legal entry documents. Stop that. It's illegal! Don't do it. Get out.

But, yes we do have the unique geographical feature of the longest border in the world with a less developed country. It's an understandable magnet. People come across it illegally. Against the law. Breaking the law. How many ways do we need to say that illegal is a status, not a race. A sovereign country has the right, and the obligation to it's citizens, to control the border.

Control the border already. Democrats and "reasonable Republicans" are selling us out on that issue. Derelict in their duty to control our border. To the tune of tens of millions here illegally.

Stop it.

To the point that this is a Tea Party issue, it's because of the spending. It's straining our already-strained state budgets and is an unfair burden on citizens.

Randy Masters:
Great post. Too bad it just goes in one ear and out the other. They are blinded by their own stupidity, no matter how smart they may be.

Roger, thank you for your comments, but I can assure you that they do not reflect anyone but your own view. Here in "fly over" country I can tell you that we are a very overtaxed nation. The notion that the US Federal Government can best spend OUR money on "Stimulus" or "Omnibus" programs is patently absurd. The thievery of Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or Jim Johnson to Jamie Gorelick in Fannie or Freddie - all of this has created more bankruptcies so that more people can get in homes that they cannot afford. This lack of oversight has hurt ALL Americans. Once you recall how America was founded - the idea of small Government and limited Federal Powers - the more you can appreciate how bloated this Omama Government has become before our eyes. From a variety Czars to a reckless economic team - none had ever worked in industry before- to no budget proposal for over 800 days - this is the best and the brightest doing nothing for the average citizen.

Now we are being asked to believe this President when he tries to eqate tax policy with debt policy. These are NOT the same, and the President has not even proposed a plan - or an idea, just saying that any Republican plan is bad. OK - thats is fine, but can we have the President stop "leading from behind." Leadership is up front - and when this happens we will start to heal. Maybe the issues are "above his pay grade", but he is responsible to us. Sorry, that comes with the job. Spending to oblivion is not the answer.

From CBS Detroit:

Doctors link anger, crime, suicides to summer heat...

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/07/20/doctors-link-anger-to-summer-heat/#comment-54932

I think anger, crime, and suicides are more likely to be linked to 2.5 years of an Obama presidency..

Ebert: "What I read,and hear is that the Republican Party is abandoning its hopes of speaking for a majority of Americans. It will still win elections. It controls the House. Perhaps it will elect the next President. But steadily and fatally it is moving out of history."

How does that even make sense? They don't speak for the majority of Americans, but will still win elections, control the house, and elect the next President. Huh.

From your review of I.O.U.S.A., from three years ago:

"A letter to our grandchildren, Raven, Emil and Taylor: I see you growing up into such beautiful people, and I wish all good things to you as you make the leap into adulthood. But I have just seen a documentary titled "I.O.U.S.A." that snapped into sharp focus why your lives may not be as pleasant as ours have been. Chaz and I had the blessing of growing up in an optimistic, bountiful America. We never fully realized that we were paying for many of our comforts with your money.

Let me explain. There is something called the "national debt." In the movie's interviews with ordinary people, it has a hard time finding anyone who knows exactly what that is. Well, I've never exactly known, either. I thought I knew, but it never came up in conversation, and it became a meaningless abstraction, even though in 2009, the debt will pass $9 trillion.

So here's the bottom line, kids. The United States is probably going to go broke during your lifetimes. Actually, it's already broke, but getting deeper into debt allows it to keep running on thin air, like the Road Runner."

We've borrowed more than $5 trillion since then. The President's plan is to borrow another $2.5 trillion, bringing the total national debt to $17 trillion.

But obviously, this is the only sensible thing to do.

I also like this part:

"In the presidential debate earlier in the year, Ron Paul was a lonely voice talking about the debt; the others on both sides paid lip service to the problem and moved on."

Ron Paul, speakin' the truth when others won't. You said it yourself.

By the way, Ron Paul voted against the Tea Party's Cut, Cap and Balance bill yesterday. He said it didn't go far enough to control the growth of government spending, and we'd still wind up broke.

The Republican Party made a huge gamble by embracing the often naive, frequently irrational, usually hyperbolic rhetoric of the tea party movement. The GOP leadership stands at a political precipice, contemplating whether to back away slowly, oblivious of the mindless tea party stampede heading straight toward them that will send the entire party over the cliff.

As I college student, I think the problem with our education system is the need for everyone to succeed. Yes, everyone should be allowed equal opportunities in regards to education, but not everyone should go on to college. America needs people to fix our cars and build our houses. There is nothing wrong with earning a "honest living". Not everyone is cut out to be a brain surgeon (myself included), and there are people who I wouldn't want operating on me. We have to get back to accepting that different people succeed at different things and encourage individuals to pursue their callings.

You get more than the impression, that Roger thinks --- having those dumb old Republicans out of the picture, is the answer to our problems. As if Democrats are pure as the driven snow. LOL

No ------- Roger just thinks it's all that great great knowledge of those on the left, that will save the world, and lead us all to a land of bliss.

Roger --- if you really believe even 1 percent of this ---- that is, that the Democrats are the answer ---- then you are beyond naive. Well, well, well beyond naive.

I remember seeing people crying at some big rally as they saw their beloved one --- Obama --- step out from some dumb old Roman type of stage set at some stadium, just prior to election. Tears flowing down faces. They had a saviour. One they could HOPE in --- for CHANGE.

I shook my head thinking how incredibly dumb you had to be, to buy into this god like image that Obama's campaign kept playing up.

Now if you go to places on the net like Democratic Underground, where there are a bunch of die hard lefties, you will read how these folks now know, that they were duped ---- big time.

We have a name for those wrapped up in that type of brainless hysteria ---- we call them SUCKERS.

I don't know ------ maybe Roger feels guilty at the thought of Nancy Pelosi not getting cheap non-union labor for her Vineyard, Resort, and Restaurants -- that is, if the borders were patrolled as they should be.

Gotta luv how that die hard dem Nancy --- stands with the union --- EXCEPT FOR HER BUSINESSES.

We've got a word for that too ----- hypocrite.

Now Roger ----- write us about the MANY MANY shortcomings of the Dems, and we might consider you objective --- rather than a lap dog of the left.

And yeah, I don't mind saying Roger, that you are obviously as duped as those that shed tears at the thought of one clown, that would actually bring HOPE & CHANGE. As if he were some superman.

But now many more know, that if he actually had been exposed to private enterprise, instead of working as community organizer and college educator, that were subsidized by government ---- that if he actually was exposed to the real world, and he saw what it takes to run a truly private business, and not suck on the tit of the public dollar, that if he did --- he might not show the animosity he does for small private business --- that employs at least 50% of those working. And he might understand how important small business is, to getting the economy going again.

But rather --- it's all about government hires and unions (subsidized by the gov.) and that's all he cares about. As that is all he ever knew. Subsidy and big time gov. control.

Gee, why don't we all quit out jobs and work for the government.
Then we too could get that fat guaranteed pension, and never worry about being fired, no matter how much we under perform, or even screw off at work.

And man or man --- I like that idea of retiring a whole lot earlier than those in the private sector. At 90% of my wage !!!!

Let's all do it -------- not produce a darn thing ---- but work for the government. Shuffle me some paper at $120k a year?!!! Hech yeah.

Remember, Dems never saw a government job they didn't like. They knew they had a vote for life.

But Roger couldn't see the waste in government, if his life depended on it.

And that's the last word kiddies. --------- IGNORANT

So here are our three words for the day ------ IGNORANT SUCKERS that vote for HYPOCRITES. --- and we call those Democrats.

Eloquently stated prose, Roger, but here's the real question. Are you ready for Round 2? That round involves reading all of these comments and writing up a statistics-filled follow up to this post. Rise to this challenge, and I will listen further. If not, then I will flag you as a member of the media who is contributing to the problem of media perception in America. After all, while many take blog writings seriously, there are just as many people (if not a lot more) who brush it off. Here's an opportunity to prove yourself, that you still have some vigor to face down your critics.

Too long, didn't read? You've dished it out. I hope to Hell you're ready to take it and face it like a man.

6. Energy

Al Gore has been demonized for his crusade on the issue. Al Gore is correct. His opponents seem bought and paid for, whether they are aware of this or not.

I'm his opponent. I'm not bought and paid for. Here's an issue where educated people can look at the evidence and disagree, and get painted as "deniers". It's an absurd position to claim that the only ones who disagree are paid for. That's denial in itself.

Al Gore is a huckster. Living in a wantonly un-green home while telling the rest of us to do better. He's set up companies to profit in the "green" economy, but he's not suspect in pushing AGW wealth transfer schemes. No, he's an angel.

7. Education

Most Americans believe their children deserve a sound education free of ideology.

American education is chock full of leftist indoctrination, and leftist indoctrinators. Ask Barack Obama's good buddy Bill Ayers. What does he do again? Oh yeah. Now that he's not a terrorist full time, he's an educator with the University of Illinois. Trying to "reform" education to make it more Marxist. Wasn't he aided by his handpicked chairman on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in handing out $100 million to "reform" Chicago education? Wasn't that Barack Obama? Didn't they hand out all of that money to left wing organizations like Ayers "Small Schools" projects? How did they do in reforming education in Chicago?

But, please. By all means. Worry about Creationism first and foremost as the chief problem of American education.

Let's not worry about the horrendous results that we get for the billions and billions that we spend on education every year. Let's not worry about the fact that Bush wanted to be know for reaching across the aisle to Teddy Kennedy and, in doing so, doubled the size of the Department of Education with No Child Left Behind. How's that working for us?

Let's not worry about that Obama brought the disaster known as Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to Washington in the form of Arne Duncan.

Let's not ask candidates about the cheating scandal in Atlanta where 178 teachers and their superintendents were caught having cheating parties for the teacher's certifications, and what that means for our current educational system. No.

Let's worry about Creationism!

Let's don't ask candidates whether they can justify the rate of spending - when we're broke - in relation to the results that we are getting in our failing schools. Let's ask whether they will make a pledge on Evolution that pleases the left. That's the ticket.

8. Nutrition

Most sensible Americans support Michelle Obama, for example, in her concerns about childhood obesity. That some in the GOP have mocked her is a signal of blind partisanship -- and more than partisanship, fringe ideology, for what sane Republican would disagree with the First Lady?

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the opposition here.

She can advocate for whatever issue she wants to. Most First Lady's do. Literacy / cancer / obesity. Whatever. Childhood obesity is a real and good cause. Knock yourself out. Advocate away. Bring attention to the issue.

It's when the advocacy crosses over to nanny-state legislation that is the problem.

We didn't elect her. She doesn't get to pass laws.

Especially nanny-state laws. I don't know if you're paying attention to the light-bulb issue, but a lot of folks are torqued off that the government is so far into our lives as to tell us what kind of light bulb to use. Same with Michelle's nutrition law. Back off banning brownies in the school cafeteria, nanny-stater! That's not a federal issue.

Perhaps it's time to give up on our whole crazy bicameral system and go to a parliamentary system like everyone else. There's a reason our weird system hasn't taken off. None of my Canadian friends even understand it.

I'm reminded that during the 2008 and 2010 elections we read a lot of stories in the papers about people who didn't think the Republicans were all that great but they wouldn't vote Democratic because they wanted "divided government." Remember that? Remember all of those folks who didn't want the House, Senate and White House controlled by the same party? Either they were lying (quite possible) or they really did want our two political forces to put aside their differences, roll up their sleeves, and get to work.

Instead we've had obstructionism, we've had Republicans did in their heels and refuse to move an inch, and now we have an off the rails Republican Party content to let the global economy melt down as long as it means they can blame Obama.

Clearly what we've got going on now is not working.

I see BS in the comments about "right wing authoritarianism"?

in the face of all the power and money the left has been grabbing since obama took office?

Good God, there are levels of stupidity that are just beyond comprehension.

Roger, I just wanted to tell you you are a shining beacon of hope and reason in a dull and dark world. Your writing, on every subject, is clear, thoughtful, and even--if I can use an archaic word--noble. Thanks for continuing to fight.

--K. Gilbert

His movie reviews stink just like his columns - he is an expert on nothing.

9. Financial Reform

Yet attempts to regulate these industries are staunchly opposed by Republicans

Roger! You're still seeing this chiefly as a failure of regulation!

You're still missing the point that it was chiefly an intentional social-engineering risk-disabling POLICY of the Congress.

To achieve a social-engineering goal of more home ownership, Bill Clinton + Congressmen + James Johnson at Fannie Mae intentionally created the subprime mortgage market that became a bubble and then burst all over our economy. They pressured banks to make the loans to people who could not pay them back, and then bought them with tax money, and then turned them into risky securities!

You let the Congress off the hook every time, when they caused it!

Actively caused it. Barney Frank and Chris "Senator from Countrywide" Dodd worked with Fannie Mae and caused it.

Worse yet, you let those two corruptocrats write the outrageous "reform" bill. And you believe it will positively reform things! How is that possible? In what financial universe do those two guys know how to properly regulate the market?

Nobody knows what all those corruptocrats put in that huge bill, unread. Yet, you excoriate the GOP for opposing that nonsense. Of course they should oppose it.

How could you support it?

I'm reading "Reckless Endangerment". You should be too.

10. Consumer Protection

I haven't heard that this is a big issue for the 2012 election. Other than the light bulb ban, which is symbolic of the nanny-state.

Perhaps the silent majority has finally had enough of the tax and spend idiotocracy.

What is wrong with wanting a balanced budget now instead of 10 or 20 years from now. We cannot pile on the estimated 10 Trillion dollars that the Obama budget would generate in that 10 year period.

Yes I despise Barak Obama, I believe he is a globalist that would like nothing more that the destruction of the America I grew up with. That being said, I want the budget balanced no matter the pain and Barry can't have that as it would crush his socialist dreams.

If the tea party faction doesn't hold fast and prevent a debt ceiling increase, we'll be shopping for new tea party members come election time.

I'm not going to defend Republicans (or the equally bad Democrats) -- both sides are really part of the same problem. Both sides want state intervention in some aspect of public or private life. Both sides work for the Banksters and corporations and the privileged. And they always have. Both sides have walked, hand in hand, to the present welfare/warfare state. Both sides ask voters to put their faith once again in trustworthy politicians, because this time, they can't possibly let us down.

I would like to point out, however, that this article is full of weasel words, to the extent that it is not really saying anything meaningful except what its author believes. For example:

Few people have any problem with ...
The enormous shift in public opinion on these issues is not reflected by ...
Most Americans in both parties are in favor of ...
There is no doubt we must ...
It is self-evident that ...
Most Americans believe ...
Most sensible Americans support ...
It is obvious to anyone who cares ...

Mr. Ebert, I had no doubt when I started reading this piece that it would include some Creationism/ID criticism. You did not disappoint. You obviously care a great, great, great deal about this issue. It is clearly on your mind constantly if it finds its way into so much of your writing. I wonder if it's the most important thing going on in the u.s. right now. American invaders are unjustly killing foreigners in the Middle East and supporting many neoliberal regimes around the globe. This has been going on for decades, indeed, centuries. I submit that it is by far the most important political issue Americans should be thinking about.

seems like a rather simple equation:

big business + lobbyists = g.o.p. power

little citizens + clear communication + common sense = successful democracy

"I hate to be a bummer, but it seems fairly clear to me that Democrats and Republicans have consistently failed, that centrists and moderates are intellectually lazy, and that Randians and Marxists have barricaded themselves into uselessly conceptual fantasies with no relation to the real world. Those who affix these labels to themselves are pumping bellows and feeding a hazardous smoke that is methodically choking our political system and preventing meaningful progress."

That's from a essay I wrote, which, and I do apologize, I'm going to plug on your site, Mr. Ebert.

(http://theletterunread.tumblr.com/)

On topic: You make a number of good points in this post, but I think it might have served you well to cite some of the specific polls from which you extrapolated your conclusions (regarding healthcare, taxation, etc). I'm sure that you wouldn't misrepresent any data, but citations would certainly lend more credibility to your arguments.

I am shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that a healthy percentage of those defending Tea Party ideology here can't seem to spell or punctuate.

What was that you said about education, Roger?

The Republican majority in the House apparently is willing to risk the economic vitality and welfare of the nation. It has foolishly embraced the tea party's economic scorched earth rhetoric by threatening to vote against raising the debt limit unless all of their demands are met … or worse, even if they are met.

The delusional tea party faction of the Republican Party is behaving like a deranged, estranged spouse who -- rather than lose the house, investments, and parental control of the kids in a divorce settlement -- decides to burn down the house with the spouse and kids inside.

Roger,

I was tempted at first to be angered by your article, but actually I think it's mostly a bit precious, right down to your juvenile, swiftly chosen clip art. I do think a few years ago, sure, there was a big momentum kicking up for the Democrat party and a kind of cultural superiority to these types of positions, but this article is just not up to par for you and incredibly naive in almost every respect. I'll conveniently go down your rather un-informed and cliche ridden list. 1. "Debt and taxation" oh boy, here comes Roger, giving his two cents like he's writing an editorial for the USA today. Really?!? "The theory that wealth and jobs will "trickle down" is a fossil from the Reagan era. Voodoo economics. Money that goes to the top has a way of staying at the top, which is why the richest Americans have prospered in these hard times." Roger, well, where is the flippin' money going to come from then? Where does money come from for most of us who don't get paid by rich liberals? Now sure, I do believe that there is no real reason for anyone to live such lavish lifestyles as many, such as yourself (who gets to go on all these film trips all the time) and not admit to a certain degree of squandering resources. giving large sums of money to people trying to succeed in life is a great thing, having no more than 2 stories to a house... ... ... driving a 6 year old Honda, eating out once a week, going to the beach for a week, Europe once every few years if you save, and personally decide to cap one's own lifestyle.. but the second best thing the rich can do is to make money, spend it, or put it in a bank or invest in a company, because THAT'S HOW MONEY WORKS. In looking for work, the only chance one has to succeed is that corporations can afford to hire more people that are trying to help that company make money. I'm not saying it's the best system or it doesn't create certain issues, but the bottom line is, for people who are actually struggling, it's what you have to work with and the philosophical ideas of thinking poorly of people with money will not do any good. Neither will taking the money out of the system, which is essentially what taxes do, removing the fluid from the engine. Money in an economy WILL MOVE, it has no business standing still, and that movement is economic movement, jobs. Taxing will take more out of that economy and it will be less successful. Period. It is appalling that people demonize people for standing for something here. I think the issue is out of control. It infuriates me to think how dumb they think we are. The government has spent to a mind blowing degree. It is utterly disgusting and leaves you utterly dumbfounded. This spending has taken place in a "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" manner. The money is spent and now we've got to pay for it. You treat certain Republicans and me like idiots, but you arguments are just so naive. THAT is what comes across as pompous. Arguments that make conservative views out to be idiotic when no arguments are presented. I just described some basic economics that I believe show why tax increases should not be tolerated. The Tea Party, made up mostly of lower/middle class Americans whose positions have increasingly been defined in such a way as to make them now unable to stand for them without being a fringe. Senators and Congressmen are simply saying they won't vote for a certain plan and suddenly they are dictatorial. How hypocritical. If they were to simply vote for what the President wanted that would make him powerful in a way that our system doesn't allow. This is designed into the system. It is incredibly democratic, but this conservative ideology is being slandered. 2. Health Care, well, sure, there are maddening things about the plight people are in, but one thing that's important is this, the difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney's came at the state level. I believe that the system is too big for this bill to have any sane results. States should be able to address the issues that are being addressed. That's more constitutional and more feasible. Obama has had to write countless waivers because companies may very well not be able to remain profitable with some of the demands. That will hurt the economy and the ability for companies to hire. 3. Church and state. Oh boy. Here are two paragraphs that couldn't be more cliche and just a mess. What proof? What on earth? What do I even say here? What are you talking about? What's wrong with people having Christian conviction about what they're doing? I mean, well Romney's a mormon and that's really different from Christianity. And ummm... what!?!?! what does this even mean? Sorry they believe something? I mean what to say here? where's the foul? They think they know God's will. That's such a cliche, like believing in God makes you somehow able to have these laser beam messages about what to do? I do think that applying judgment to things that values human life as created in the image of God and therefore sacred and unique is a good legislating tool. And you are being quite dictatorial about your evolution schtick. I have never been given one piece of evidence that evolution on the scale described is true. You expect people to believe it because it's what is supposed to be believed and smart people that understand more believe it. Explain it to me. I'm not convinced. Anyways, i'm just saying that your critiques are mind boggling. You act like there's some sort of reality that doesn't exist in terms of how certain Christian politicians behave. 4. It's good for people to have convictions even if they are unpopular. We're talking about a private counseling center, and possibly only when clients were asking for help in the case they didn't want to be homosexual. I mean, counseling is a voluntary practice. If you don't like the methods then go elsewhere,. But I mean, if you believe homosexuality is a sin, but you don't help someone, that would be more cruel. So even though that may be an old fashioned opinion, if your convictions place that belief in you because of what the Bible says, then you have to find out the most loving way to act towards people about it, and it doesn't matter if people think you're old fashioned, out of date or much worse. 5. Immigration: once again, easy to say when you're upper class and very wealthy. The backlash comes from those who are actually impacted the inability to find work because they are competing for those jobs. Now, that's all I have to say on it, because I do actually think that caring for the needy of all nations is a priority, but just saying, don't be so quick to judge those who are genuinely being replaced in the brutal battle to provide for one's family due to the issue. 6. energy: honestly roger, where did you get that picture?!! its riDONKulous! Well, i'm not really sure how to answer that, once again, i'm unsure, I don't have much knowledge of the evidence, but I will say that the devil is in the details. Cap and trade is dangerous in causing energy prices to go up due to the passing on of costs to consumers who are hit harder by the increases. inflation is the worse tax on the poor, is a really important concept to grasp. Also, the climate folks do a lot of disservice in how they handle themselves. You hear report after report of these rich, swanky climate summits where every participant is riding their own limousine and flying in on a private jet. 7. Education: Actually, no, most people don't necessarily want education free from ideology. God cannot be made neutral in these discussions. If kids are taught that the world was created without a God in these classes, that is the teaching of a religious position. These parents have paid for this education out of their paychecks and they have no control over what is then taught. Very un-empowering for them. But in general, as the movies told us last year, there needs to be improvement in this education. We are paying for these schools and they need to be better, and efficiencies need to be introduced that centralization hurts. Local level education control should be more heavily used. Major decentralization concerning matters of decision making should be put in place. Local level. States rights. Some good principles.
8: Nutrition: Well, okay, maybe you're right, though you don't give specific examples. I'm more concerned that Republicans are standing up for conservative principles than taking on side issues like these. Not that the issue of obesity is a side issue, it's just that I mean there's going to be limited impact if parents don't take control of it. 9: Financial Reform: sure, but the issues are even bigger than that I believe. I could go into more, but need to wrap up. There are big conundrums though. Regulations can hurt profits and people who own shares or have an interest in bank's success (you know, like most people with 401k's or people who work at banks or need loans) will be effected. Yet, if people with knowledge of these matters make the decisions (which has led to many issues) about regulations, they have a high likelihood of becoming skewed to help their own interests. Money is a dangerous thing in Washington, and it's a good conservative principle simply to say that corruption will go down if the rule makers didn't have so flipping much of it to work with! there are some major issues here, the tea party is spot on about career politicians, celebrity politicians, the wealth is all over that place and that has to be aided first. 10. "consumer protections": well here, you really need to do some defining because thats very vague. Yet at some point we do need to simply be able to use our brains and buy products that will not do ourselves harm. There's room for prudence, but I think some conservatives are vilified when they are simply wanting to make sure that certain rules are not in place that inordinately take basic ability to think out of the minds of consumers. For instance, the light bulb thing, why make typical light bulbs illegal. They may make sense for someone. Let people buy them if they want...

But in the end, let me say this. Conservatism is not necessarily a cheer leading of wealth and the hoarding of wealth. Probably, most CEO's and rich lawyers, film stars, movie reviewers are typically democrats. I actually think, without being too hypocritical when comparing to the rest of the world, that wealth should be curbed more, except through personal conviction leading to a freedom and graciousness with money and letting go of vanities that don't make one happy. But I find that many rich liberals make arguments that make less rich conservatives seem naive and uninformed when they may think quite a bit about these issues and have a much bigger experiential understanding of what a "good" or "bad" economy is all about.

It may be time for Republicans to declare their independence from their radical fringe and embrace common sense, but whether they do so or not is another matter. And it's possible they'll wreck things irrevocably in the meantime. They have been few elected GOPers willing to break ranks and support the 10 issues you touched on, ostensibly because of Tea Party wrath. The Tea Party votes and if mainstream America wants to assert these values it must vote to. That's how democracy works and why citizens often get the government they deserve.

"He who hath ears, let him hear"

Those of us who agree with you like this piece and those of us who don't, hate it. I know it's not rocket science, but I always find these post like preaching to the choir. We already believe and those not ready to be saved can't understand the language. Thank you for stating on the large stage what I already believe.

One sentence I don't agree with.

" It is obvious to anyone who cares that the housing crisis and market collapse were brought about by greedy and dishonest actions by the big banks, Wall Street trading firms, and their unholy co-defendants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "

It's when oil jumped from $11 dollars a barrel in 1999 to $148 dollars in 2008 a barrel thanks to Saudi-run OPEC.

That's where you follow the money.

As you once tweeted from me, http://twitter.com/#!/ebertchicago/statuses/9078680883

It says "Keith Carrizosa: In 2003, we spent 25% as much on oil as on houses. In 2008, we spent over 140% more on oil than on houses."

The same year the price of oil went through the roof.

That means people who Could afford houses couldn't afford them anymore (couldn't pay their mortgage/would have but didn't buy a house) because the cost of the fuel that it takes everything to and from the stores went up, causing prices to go up and less driving and spending (or less house-buying).

It is a fact that every time the price of oil has gone up dramatically there's been an increase in unemployment.

I think that's why there hasn't been a "parade" of cases.

But also, oil is a global commodity. It didn't just happen to our economy in 2008, it happened (and Is happening) to the global economy; all happening the same year as when the price of oil exploded as it always has been, the price of which is still 5x higher than the free-market price, which should be around $20 dollars a barrel, or less than $2 dollars a gallon.

Yes, I'm aware of the argument people will make when they say follow the money in the case of Wall Street; they'll say "There never was Any money!" Well, yes, there would be money in Their pockets, now, wouldn't there? Is there enough money in those pockets to cause a global collapse? No (plus, as I said, there was FIVE TIMES MORE going to oil than the loss in house-buying). However, oil, has been taking an average of about $1trillion dollars a year out of our economy ((about 4$trillion per year from global economy) since 2007, up from about $70 billion in 1999; or the world: about $240 billion (up by factor of 12); we use 1/4 of worlds oil. But just look at history and you will see that oil has always been causing this. The reason it's been worst than it's ever been is because the price of oil never went up as high as it did in 2008, or hovered at such high prices as they've been hovering since 2007 when it first went up to $100 dollars a barrel.

So, as oil has been taking 1$ trillion dollars out of our economy per year since 2007, show me the Wall Street guys who can match that kind of money per year.

That's where you follow the money.

I don't think we're seeing that kind of money going to Wall Street crooks, but it is going to Middle Eastern crooks (and it Is illegal to price-fix and there Are penal actions that can be taken for such as being members[OPEC] of the WTO).

Roger,

I watch political programs regularly and what pundits don't address (even liberal pundits) is the question, what is the ultimate goal of the conservative right wing? I'm talking about the folks that (as far as we know) are running the show at the top. People like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Dick Army, Cheney and the like. In your opinion, what is their ultimate goal? What exactly are they trying to achieve? If they had their way right here, right now, what would this country, this world, look like?

Here we go. Republicans are "anti-science", "anti-nature", "anti-woman" (never mind the misogynists are on the left when you see how Michelle Bachmann, Sara Palin, etc. are being attacked), "anti-gay", "anti-senior citizen", etc. etc. etc.

Remember back when Republicans were trying to field presidential candidates from '05-'08?
It wasn't even clear WHO was the front Democratic front runner, out of seven possible declared and semi-declared candidates, and yet the mantra coming out of the Republicans, as a solid unified battle cry, was "Who can we get to beat Hillary?"
Not, as one might logically assume, "Who can we get to beat the Democratic front-runner?"--heaven forbid it should be anybody else--but "Who can deliver us from the threat of President Hillary?" In their minds, the '08 Democratic convention had already been convened and decided three years early, and the words just seemed to be their own apocalyptic terror. (Well, they were for the Democrats, too, but for a different reason, and we sensed more of a snowball's chance of it happening...That the Dems had already decided on a candidate we didn't even like sure came as news to the Rest of Us.)
The Republicans even had to trot out Ms. Loopy as a running mate, just because they didn't understand what "magic spell" to work on female voters, who they assumed would march in zombified droves to vote for "their" Demo candidate.

From our Just Sayin' department:
Fear of a second Clinton (which she was not), or....?

Ebert has borrowed a page from the Democrat 50 year old playbook.

Oh, yeah, thanks, almost forgot:
As we can see from the organized "Here's proof you're obviously wrong, Roger, that's why we can't believe anything you say" campaign (get enough of them going, and it might work!), the one other thing we see about Republicans is, they're not quite so worried about there being a social problem, so much as someone FINDING OUT about it--Issues are not to be fought with debate, or solutions, but with discrediting and silencing the evil, naughty, malicious, obviously skewed and propagandic messenger.
Al Gore does a documentary on global warming...Do we debate the facts on warming, or do we point out how much Gore is an ambitious stagestruck spinner of propaganda, and make parodies and imitative counter-documentaries of his work? Michael Moore makes "Fahrenheit 9/11"...Does the Right respond with documentaries defending Bush's actions?--No, they respond with no less than six documentaries discrediting Moore as an evil disingenuous (amazing how everyone "randomly" picked up the word after one senator used it) skewer of propaganda to corrupt the innocent.
Apparently, there's no politician so evil as his messenger--Shoot away.

(Funny how the Right seems to see "evil machinations of propagandic spin doctors" everywhere...Almost like they're USED to the idea.
But, as with all of the Right's supposed sins...."The Democrats did it first!") ;)

Thank "goodness" that life on earth will disappear someday. No more of this righteous nonsense from naive, delusional liberals and conservatives. Know your place in the universe. Give up, people.

Considering the topics you're discussing you are more measured than usual in your blog. I assume you're trying hard. In the end I don't think there's much hope for conservatism and liberalism to coexist. Liberalism seems to define what is true as some relativistic idea that is determined by the majority. Arts and culture are used as means to change peoples ideals and then when a lot of people believe something it is called truth. What I see as true conservatism stands on the basis of objective truth, and so as the playing field of liberal truth continues to shift we become more isolated from each other and more shocked by each other. If a hundred years ago it was "true" that a gay lifestyle was wrong then why does your different view today outweigh that view? Why does a liberal's ideal of right and wrong shift so much? Doesn't the belief that it is wrong come from biblical teaching, and if so doesn't this further support the idea of this nation having a "christian" heritage? If certain representatives are under the sway of religious fundamentalists, how his this inferior to being under the sway of non-religious people with shifting worldviews? If a conservative believes that an increase in government is a decrease of freedom based on both history and the view of many founding fathers, are they not seeking what is best for the nation in the long run? Are there not lesser intrusions of government into national healthcare that would help resolve the cost problems? I don't want to sacrifice my or anyone else's future freedom for catastrophic health coverage. On education, do you really believe there is any such thing as ideologically free? Is there no ideology in taking a nation that once taught English using the Bible and prohibiting it's use? There are clearly philosophers who have influenced such shifts in thinking, such as Immanuel Kant's writing that religion must exist within the bounds of reason. He separated religion from reason. That doesn't mean that I did. But I have a foundation as I believe in absolute truth, and so I can understand why I might choose one truth over what someone else calls truth. How is it that you are able to discern? In your non-fundamentalist, non-dogmatic way of thinking, how do you even manage to make a decision? I've tried to be measured in my comments. Hopefully it shows.

I love love love you Roger.

I don't believe the poll, but if 71% of Americans believe that taxes need to be raised it's because most of the people polled aren't paying any taxes or very little. The top 10% wage earners (the evil rich) pay 70% of all taxes while the bottom 50% aren't paying a dime. But somehow we point the finger at those who pay the lions share and proclaim they don't pay enough or their fair share while letting half of America skip on the bill. What a joke. I dated a women who's 20 year old daughter got back $6000 dollars back on a tax return from income that was just over $20K. She though she "earned" it. I had to explain to her that someone else had to work for that money so the gov't could give it to her and that she really didn't pay a dime in taxes. This girls public school trained reasoning still couldn't grasp the concept and then went and blew the money on her baby daddy. I guess she was stimulating the economy. As the old saying goes " If you rob Peter to pay Paul you'll always have the support of Paul."

Maybe it's me but This one almost seemed like an advertisement for the GOP. Good thing all the responsible people are doing their part in exposing us to all sides of the debate. Just think, if we can get every outlet manned by responsible people this, what a wonderful world we could make.

Can we please stop propagating the myth of the Clinton budget surplus? Revenues didn't surpass spending that year. Yes, revenues were higher than projected--the economy was finally taking off as we entered the .com boom. But Congress was still borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to close the gap. Add those funds, and that's how you get the illusion of a surplus.

And since Congress, then as now, had no plans, nor arguably even intentions, of paying back those "IOUs" to the trust fund, what they did was outright theft from the future.

"The Tea Party is fanatically opposed to increasing taxes. Seventy-one percent of Americans agree right now that taxes should be increased."
Why does it matter that 71% want higher taxes? Why should the minority pay just because 71% want higher taxes? Can't those 71% just give some of their own money to the government?

"We remain the only developed nation in the world without universal health care. Most reasonable people agree the time has come to move in that direction."
So the f**k what?

"Opponents of health care are financed by lobbyists paid by the insurance and drug companies."

Nobody is an opponent of health care.

"Only the richest can afford to pay for a catastrophic illness."
Let capitalism fix it! Roger, you are not stupid! You realize that capitalism works when it comes to providing us with food, video games, books, movies, beds, houses, tables, and millions of other things, so why don't you think that capitalism can give us good health care?

"It is obvious to anyone who cares that the housing crisis and market collapse were brought about by greedy and dishonest actions by the big banks"
This latest housing disaster is not my area of expertise, but there are plenty -PLENTY- of people who blame it on the government.

". We are all consumers. This is a consumer economy. Why is there such virulent Republican opposition to a Consumer Protection Agency and associated legislation? "
There are already agencies that protects people! Or what, is there no police in the US? Are there no courts? Are those not enough?

Seriously Roger, choose to use your brain, or are you so arrogant you belive you don't need to use your brain?
/Sebastian Lundh, Sweden
Ps.
I apologize if my english is broken.

As we grapple with many important issues, we find that zombie movies often provide valuable insight. The measured, deliberate and calm tone of this column is reminiscent of a scene from that most socially incisive of films, Dawn of the Dead. Everyone at the television studio (and in the world) is freaking out and panicking, except for one doctor being interviewed on a news show. He speaks in a level voice and he's got a great beard. He insists that no matter what, people must remain calm and use Reason. I think about this scene a lot as I watch the Tea Party wreaking havoc with all of our best institutions. They *should* be easy enough to deal with, as long as people continue to Think and Reason.

I was also surprised by the 71% number, but I find it encouraging. The premise behind taxes is that the more one pays, the more services one derives from the government. In that context, it makes sense that the super-wealthy (who have less need for gov't services) would be opposed to higher taxes, but it is baffling that "middle-class America" doesn't whole-heartedly support paying a bit more in if the result is a bit more out.

I think the real problem is that much of the 29% (or whatever the 'real' number is) who are opposed to higher tax rates is comprised of lower-middle-class folks from "red" states who have long been accustomed to receiving the benefits of the higher taxes paid by their "blue" state fellows without taking the hit to their own wallets. Now that they might actually have to take a modicum of responsibility for their roads, emergency services, etc, they are becoming rather indignant.

@ Carol | July 20, 2011 8:01 PM |

Au contraire, human intelligence is progressive, and we will rid ourselves of out of touch oppressive thinking (let's just say Hard Right Republicanism, Talibanism, Mullahism, IntelligentDesignism, Racism, etc.). After all, it has been recently confirmed Neanderthals did assimilate. Just saying...

@ keith carrizosa | July 21, 2011 12:12 AM

Don't forget Western and Eastern enablers in your equation, of Middle Eastern crooks, just keeping your point "fair and balanced."

Mr. Ebert, while I have enormous respect for your thoughts on film and have enjoyed your reviews for years. Your thoughts here are embarrassingly ignorant. I'd like to respond to nearly all of them with the exception of no.4 and 5 which I may I gree with you, although President Reagan passed an amnesty bill in 86 and we saw ILLEGAL immigration explode and President Bush was about to propose a "path to citizenship" when 9/11 happened and changed the debate.

1, if you really think that raising taxes will go into a neat little box called "pay down the debt" than you're incredibly naive. If taxes are raised, the governement will spend it. There are 100s of years of evidence on this. And if you want to pay more, by all means, pay more Mr. Ebert....but I won't hold my breathe.

2, most Americans don't support Obamacare, I don't know where you get your facts, but that is simply wrong. The Obama administration gives new waivers everyday. And the CBO has already stated that the original calculations are way off. Are health system had problems, adress those problems we don't need a governement overhaul.

3, First of all, most Republican leaders do believe in evolution, but have faith as well. They simply don't ascribe to the notion that evolution explains EVERYTHING. And even if no Republican believed in evolution...how does that affect policy? Science? The left's track record is horrible on science. How about the left's banning of DDT which led to millions dying in Africa? Where's the apology for their faulty science on that one?

6, Al Gore has proven to be a hypocrite and his doc has more holes in it than the Bonnie and Clyde shootout scene. Even the IPCC said Mr. Gore's assertion that NYC would be under 50 ft of water by 2050 was a gross and irresponsible exageration...what did the IPCC say? More like 18 inches.

7, You really didn't say Americans want an ideology free education...did you? The left has a stranglehold from pre-K to graduate school. C'mon you know that. Don't even play with that one.

8, Again, Mrs. Obama's point is well-taken we just don't think it's governement's role to have mandates on these matters. Where is it OK not to have the governement in our lives. Outside of sex, the left wants to control every aspect of our lives, right down to the food we eat. Saving us from ourselves, right?

9, The regulations that were in place CAUSED THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. You probably don't follow this very much, but all the Dems are on video saying that Fannie Mae is doing fine as late as 2007. Look it up. The mandates to banks to give out bad loans are the main culprit here.

10, CPA's are a victim of the law of unintended consequences. They sound nice but in practice they actually hurt consumers. There is a long history of this. CPAs hurt the poor. Have some compassion Mr. Ebert. I know you like to think you have it but the policies you embrace hurt the most vulnerable. I'm done with ya'.

Take a look at this study of how many Americans who benefit from government programs do not realize or admit that they do: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/people_on_the_public_dole_living_in_denial

That right there is the entire reason that our national debt and government spending debates exist in their current form. It's not like we're living under the Sun King dipping into the coffers to throw lavish parties and build the palace at Versailles. The second highest paid government official is the Postmaster General, who makes $265,000 a year. If that sounds exorbitant, consider that he or she is the equivalent to the CEO of UPS or FedEx, but with the constraints of being a government agency.

Our debt, massive though it may be, is spent on programs that benefit us. Yet all anyone seems to be able to think about when the subject arises of government programs: something that poor people use because they're lazy. Until we own up as a society to just how much use we all get from these programs, we can't have a meaningful discussion about what is and is not "wasteful" spending.

Stick to the movies, you have no clue.

During the healthcare debate (and in these comments) I kept hearing that universal healthcare has failed in the countries that have attempted it.

I'm not sure where Fox News got this from, but as an Aussie living in the UK, I can assure you that the healthcare systems in both countries generally work very well and are supported by voters. There is a riot in the UK every time people think the NHS is being threatened by conservatives.

In fact, we look at the US and can't figure out why you guys won't get your act together.

Well-said (as usual) Roger!

Mr. Ebert, I agree with the challenges that ask you for more statistics to support your preferential claims.

Then again you could have saved a lot of time had you simply written: “I don’t like the Tea Party and the reason is: They refuse to assent to my liberal opinions and my personal values and morality.”

Roger, welcome to the opposition.

I wished I shared your view that the extremist fringe was on the way out. But in reading the many unhinged, ignorant, and visceral comments, it seems clear to me that these people aren't going anywhere, and as long as the powerful can get use from them, they'll be front and center. And I don't see the powerful releasing their grip on this any time soon.

That's the lesson I got from Alexa Pelosi's last film about McCain supporters. There are something like 30-50 million Americans who genuinely believe that all the media is biased except for conservative media, that all education is biased except for overtly Christian and/or Biblical education, that all Muslims are terrorists, that Mexican immigrants come here for our lavish welfare, that we're too poor to afford medical care for all, that the rich deserve to keep all their money because that's where jobs come from, etc.

On my most optimistic days I sorta agree with you, but today's not one of those days. Clear-eyed reality seems to be the order of the day, and it says that this political faction isn't going to quit until they've brought us all to ruin.

Many of the comments to this article appear to assert that raising taxes never results in increased revenue, that lowering taxes (especially in the upper tax brackets) is the only way to stimulate the economy.

To those people, I would ask this: Where is the hard evidence of this? If the statement above is axiomatically true, history should be replete with examples that low taxes always stimulate the economy, and high taxes always damage the economy. If no incontrovertible evidence presents itself, than the assertion is merely a theory, not a statement of fact.

Unfortunately for those holding to the assertion that we cannot raise taxes, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Examine US history. From the 1940s into the 1970s, income tax rates for the highest bracket hovered around 90%. Let me state that figure again: 90%. However, these were not grim economic times in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. enjoyed great economic prosperity in those decades. More importantly, these were decades in which that prosperity was enjoyed by a majority of Americans.

I understand that there is also a philosophical objection to the idea of taxes. Many people apparently consider taxation to be a form of theft mixed with moral horror at the idea of wealth: The government, like Robin Hood, takes money that you rightfully earned, and does so to punish you for your success.

To this, I can only offer the following: Consider that taxes are not penalties and are not theft. The stable generation of wealth is only really possible in an environment that enjoys political and social stability, with a strong infrastructure capable of supporting industrial pursuits. Taxes are a method by which the government perpetuates that stability. They are, in fact, the price that we must pay for such blessed stability. Without infrastructure maintenance and a vigorous social safety system maintained through taxes, we already know what happens. Wealth accumulates at the top, which is fantastic for those at the top...until conditions among the rest of the population become so untenable and unsustainable that revolutions occur. Revolution means chaos, and the end of stable economies. We've repeatedly seen it happen throughout history. France. Russia. China. Cuba. Even rumblings of it here early in the 20th century.

The wealthy should support taxation of their wealth, not just because supporting a vigorous social safety net is the ethical thing to do. In the long run, it's also the best thing for business and the economy as a whole.

some of the criticisms against roger are tragi-comedy. Roger criticizes the fundamentalist Christians for wanting to shove creationism as a legitimate curriculum, and the fundies on the board ridicule him, saying, "Why are you bringing this issue up?" The tragedy part is he's pointing out exactly what the fundamentalist right-wing christians are substituting for real issues. The right wing won't talk about debt solutions until pressed. they would prefer that their other social engineering priorities, like so-called "intelligent design," same sex marriage, immigration, Sharia Law, etc., distract us from the real problems of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Republicans don't really want to talk about that problem, because it's too real, too concrete, it negatively impacts their own rich kind (and why middle class Americans would support a party that has no concern for their material interests is just nuts), and Republicans aren't even apologetic about not having the answers to the economic train wreck they are driving all of us to.

I hope your next article is on the democrat party. Seeing as they lost the last election, and even democrats agree they will lose the senate in 2012, there must be something wrong with them as well.

For a guy who watches movies all day long, you're pretty smart.

Hmmmm. . . where to begin?

I seems to me that Mr. Ebert is well-engaged in the common life fallacy of leftist insulation, similar to the way Ms. Pauline Kael was, as another commentator noted above. This phenomenon is common to many in the media who are patently far-left yet self-identify as moderate as they are surrounded essentially only by people, ideas, and pop culture that is leftist in orientation. As such, they have no intellectual choice but to label their philosphical opponents as ignorant, predjudiced, or both. The central irony, of course, is that they unknowingly display their own ignorance and predjudice for all to see. Mr. Ebert does this in several places above, either parroting poll numbers he's seen on various far-left websites he probably considers mainstream, or simply making things up. You can see this when he says that 70% of Americans support higher taxation and the majority support Obamacare, which the data show is patently false-close to 60% of Americans actually support the repeal of Obamacare. The comments on this blog I feel are fairly representative of the overall philosophical state of the country-about 50-50% divided along idealogical lines, which is considerable given how many leftist sycophants probably read Mr. Ebert's blog.

The only way to understand his way of thinking is to have thought that way oneself, at one time. As a relatively young (30) former far-leftist and psychiatrist, I understand where he is coming from. I am fascinated by the phenomen at work here, and have observed it in many people. Mr. Ebert now represents a facet of the ossified media left, much as Eleanor Clift and Chris Matthews do. The reality is, leaving leftism is difficult-akin to leaving a church-and becomes more difficult, if not impossible, as one ages. It often entails the loss of friends and necessarily involves the total upheaval of one's belief system as one realizes that leftist ideas simply aren't fair or viable in the real world. Inevitably, one starts to shield oneself from what he may even know subconsciously is the truth, and as one gets older, it becomes all the more painful and eventually impossible to make the difficult transition away from the fruitless visions of leftism. If there's one thing I've learned in my practice of psychiatry, it's that the ego knows no bounds when defending itself from self-reflection, thus all leftists will invariably engage in cognitive dissonance, believing this makes their thinking complex, rather than the truth, which is that their thinking is blatantly nonsensical. Mr. Ebert does this above, almost immediately, when he notes that the republican party is dying the slow death of losing public opinion and in the next sentence remarks that they may take congress, or the presidency, in 2012. To the detached observer, these statements are contradictory, but probably make sense to Mr. Ebert, who, like all leftists, is the proud and self-righteous possessor of a brain that doesn't work.

What's saddest about this is that I have seen it effect his ostensible MO over the years-that of being a film critic-to the point that he has become ineffectual at what is supposedly his life's calling. He can be easily swayed regarding a highly complex issue by a single dogmatic documentary, and frequently rewards these with high praise because they fit his knee-jerk belief system. The final nail in the coffin for me was probably when he named the insulting, simplistic, and highly dubious 'Crash' as the best film of 2004. It's only 7 years old, but will anybody really connect with it or remember it in 20 years? Does anybody now?

You see, Mr. Ebert talks big, talks self-righteously in fact, but I could trounce him in any political debate, written or verbal, because I understand both sides of the issues he describes above, which is the only way to truly know what one is talking about. Mr. Ebert reveals his own vast ignorance by dismissing his opponent's opinions out of hand without looking at the facts. For instance, the fact that Al Gore makes tens of millions from the green energy industry and the idea of carbon credits and himself has a huge carbon footprint means his motives are at least as questionable as those under the thumb of the oil companies who argue against "global warming." Unfortunately, this point, which I think should be fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't idolize Al Gore, is completely lost on Mr. Ebert. The fact that Keynesian economics, marxism, and socialism have all blatantly failed in the real world is lost on him as well, due to his idealogy, and he continues to assert his opinions based on emotion and not reason, in fact turning the debate around to assert the opposite-that essentially free-market economics have failed and decisions should be made based solely on the notions of fairness of the leftist elite. He repeatedly betrays his ignorance of economics in general (which are, admittedly, frequently counterintuitive) both in this blog and others, by groundlessly asserting that the rich hoard their money and that it stays at the top. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that leftists will go in denying the obvious to protect their archaic worldview. As some have mentioned above-what incentive do the super-rich have to hoard their money? They spend it, invest it, give it to charities, in the process creating jobs and wealth for others. Obama's recent demagoguery about private jets is a case in point. Who does he think builds those jets and yachts? It's working men, who, although they may never be able to afford one (as most of us won't also cannot), are probably plenty happy building them and making a fine living doing it. This is the essence of where jobs and prosperity come from-when were you ever hired by somebody without some form of wealth, at least relative to you at the time? This last point is highly demonstrative of Mr. Ebert's loss of touch with both his roots and America at large-when he started out as a journalist-he was hired by men with more money and power than he at the time. Now wealth-guilt has driven him to illogic.

Mr. Ebert's astounding self-righteousness in assuming that his far-left beliefs represent those of most Americans merely illustrates the truth-that his is a philosophy soon-to-be, and rightfully so, delegated to the ashbin of history.

All three parties fail to represent Americans properly.

Marx was right. The major division in politics is economic. We now have the lowest end of the economic scale supporting capital, not labor. That's unsustainable.

By the same token, the left, or labor, is morally opposed to the war. That's traditionally the church's stance, as it should be. But the left is atheistic, and true believers wind up on the side of capital by default.
So hurray for the Tea Party. Let's hope it's the beginning of the end of politics as we've known them since the 80s and we can get back to a more traditional, workable scheme. This strange-bedfellow arrangement is the cause of the gridlock in the US. We chase our tail trying to find a position we agree with or someone to represent us--failing to see that there is very little difference in a Harvard-educated lawyer, a Yale-educated team owner, a Rhodes scholar, and another Yale-educated skull and boneser.

That's the real appeal of Palin. She truly is different, not just another Newt-in-a-suit. She's so different, in fact, that the one thing most politicians, left or right, agree on is that she shouldn't be elected. That agreement belies the true state of politics in the US. It's like watching Ross Perot at the debates all over again--Clinton hates Bush, and Bush hates Clinton, and we're oh so different--except for the fact that this little upstart who looks like 99% of the US is just not right for America. A joke. A buffoon. Not one of us.

Politics as tag team wrestling. It's kept the population docile while capital raids the coffers and calls it stimulus. We've sold the country to the Chinese and no one ever talks about it. Thanks, elite ivy-league grads. Have fun in Argentina or western Canada or the Italian alps, and say hi to my mortgage once in a while. Pull that stunt again in Euorpe or South America and you'll find they're not so easily bamboozled. Yeah, that'll be you hanging in effigy. But we're too busy here to be bothered with punishing you for killing our country. We're listening to NPR fact-check Palin on Paul Revere rather than paying attention to who's robbed us of our country.

I confess that it mystifies me how many out there (and on this thread) are still willing--even after two disastrous Bush terms--to champion the extreme Right-Wing agenda. It's enough to make one start checking under one's bed each night for a pod...

Roger,
Some of your points are more defensible than others, I believe.
I understand (though do not agree with) the arguments against socialized medicine, increased taxation, consumer protection and financial reform. I think these issues are more complex than either side makes then out to be.
However,
I patently do not understand the stance many Americans take against science in the name of religion. It should be embarassing to all of us that anyone who believes homosexuality is a treatable disorder and creationism should be taught as valid science receives any votes whatsoever.
As to global climate change: The evidence is overwhleming. I'm naturally skeptical, as we all should be. It is true that some leftists embrace enviromental doom-scenarios. This one's different, though.
Here's what did it for me:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point

Scientific American, The US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science and Michael Shermer himself (who identifies as a libertarian) have nothing to gain by defending the reality global climate change. What do Tea Partiers gain by denying it?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth

America's era in space ends...
...HELLO MUSLIM OUTREACH!

Illegal aliens = undocumented workers- nah!

It's more like this: Illegal aliens = undocumented Democrats!

There are a lot of stupid people in this country. People who vote against their self interest because religious issues (abortion, gay marriage) are more import to them. This is the bargain that the GOP made with the religious right (as outlined in “What's the Matter with Kansas”).

Some examples:

1. A woman I work with, who is very intelligent and very nice, told me that she votes based on the candidate’s position on abortion and gay rights (against).
2. I recently went to a town hall meeting with my Congressman where several people stood up and argued against global warming. And, they were applauded.
3. A 93 year old neighbor woman, who's only income is Social Security and her husband's union pension and her husband's VA benefits always votes Republican because she came from a Republican family.
4. Her late husband voted Republican because “the Jews are taking over the Supreme Court”.

You cannot argue with a stupid person. Their minds are made up. Everything is black and white.

Something I heard on the radio the other day was that recent surveys indicate that many people who receive government benefits do not realize that they come from the government (keep your government hands off of my Medicare).

In a two party system, the only way voters have to register their displeasure with the government is to vote against the incumbent. If the incumbent is a Democrat, then they will vote Republican. That is how George Bush got to be president.

Hey Roger,

What do you think of Texas Congressman Ron Paul?

A lot people consider his ideas of a market system restructure as radical, and his opposition of government intervention. Personally, I support him.

What's your opinion?

Ebert: I disagree with most of his beliefs. But in Presidential debates he speaks his mind clearly, and doesn't pussy-foot around with p.r. boilerplate.

a washed up movie critic....keep ruining your legacy....lol..

"The right wing of the Republican Party is under the sway of religious fundamentalists. Some of these people believe they know God's will."

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --Susan B. Anthony

Reading Roger's entry and a LOT of the comments I can see now that the biggest corruption in the U.S is not caused money or greed but by Confirmation Bias.

It so rampant that you (Americans as a whole) have come to deify the men and women who occupy any public position or the party they represent.

People come and go, it is then absolutely useless to lend them any of your time, money and effort. You should stand up for your own beliefs and not someone who you think represent them.

Why don't you try to think outside your box, read books and articles that stands on the opposite of what you believe in and see if some of it makes sense. Don't tell your friends and families about it, just keep it to yourself, think it through and let your opinions evolve (no pun intended).

Passion rules the game WAY too much and while politicians fuels them the real issues are not being taken care of.

Phil

There are essentially two obstacles. The first is the continuous campaigning loop. Positions are taken, decisions are made--and, inevitably, lies are told--with a constant eye on the next election date. I was watching CNN; two guests were brought in to discuss the economy/debt ceiling. The Republican--not a politician, but as I recall someone who had worked for McCain and is still active in the GOP--mentioned that Obama's tax "hike" would affect not only the super-rich but anyone making over $250,000. She then mentioned in passing that a working family--a nurse and a fire fighter was her example--would struggle under the tax proposal. This sounded odd to me (although not to the moderator, who said nothing), so I went online, checked out three separate sites that listed average salaries. Fire fighters: $40-50,000; nurses: around $70,000. Perhaps she misspoke--but when the mind is set on winning, not being right, the truth be damned.

The above leads to the second problem: class warfare. The discussion about the economy is hindered by a conscious manufacture of a low-middle-upper class society--and a real sense of antagonism keeps this fiction alive. More than one commenter here assertively conjures a middle class that works hard and is besieged--especially by the poor, but also by the upper class. This middle class antagonism is self-defeating--the socio-economic lines are much more subtle than a three-class system admits, and it's easier to slide down than up the continuum; but the middle class persists in its antagonism toward the lower class--often demonized as illegals and deadbeats--while the actual poor would like nothing better than to be given the opportunity to become middle class. Meanwhile, the upper class, even at its best, remains aloof, almost invisible in our society--aside from the cathartic skewering the tabloids provide. (I think I agree with the recent NYT op-ed piece that points to this "benefit" of the tabloids--again, though, this merely stokes the fires of class antagonism.) This invisibility is a good thing for the upper class: It's often only after the worst has been done that we become aware of their actions.

So, between the erasure of statesmanship in favor of politicking and the conscious manufacture and maintenance of class antagonisms, real solutions stand little chance--unless they occur as a side-effect of the Eternal Campaign or the Class War. So once more, have fun storming the castle.

I figure all I can do is vote for things I believe in. I voted with the Tea Party in 2010, and I'll do so again in 2012.

But in this time of volatile partisan bickering, I choose to turn to some good old stand-up. You know, 'laughter is the best medicine'.

Listening to Richard Pryor's old comedy albums does it for me. Mudbone is the funniest thing he's ever done. Check it out!

Ron said- "I am shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that a healthy percentage of those defending Tea Party ideology here can't seem to spell or punctuate."

A general sign that you've lost the argument is when you have to resort to criticizing others for misspelled words and punctuation.

I hesitate to say that the GOP will disappear, though it hasn't always been, and maybe it will be replaced by a new conservative party.

I think what we're seeing is another Barry Goldwater moment, a period where the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Past Republican presidents like Nixon and Reagan, and even, to some extent George W. Bush, have been able to salve the social conservative and Libertarian wings of the party without being owned by it, but because GWB left no natural successor, there is no natural leaders to be found.

To some extent I suspect it's because a number of what I'd call "serious" candidates know very well that Obama will be largely unbeatable, particularly with the Tea Party forcing the GOP in an anti-moderate direction. Look how the wolves have attacked Mitt Romney, the sole "serious" candidate of any note thus far. In the end he'll either have to drop out or compromise much of what he stood for. Other candidates of his kind are looking at this and realizing that the Tea Party is making a GOP victory nearly impossible, so the best thing to do is to sit out 2012, wait until the Tea Party dies down, and then look to 2016.

Populist movements like the Tea Party do not last. Gingrich destroyed himself by the very financial and moral strategies he applied against Clinton. The fact is that political parties want to be in power, and ultimately, even if they have to pay lip service to certain fractional demographics, they'll go where the votes go.

Maybe someone pointed this out already, so forgive me, but I wanted to address those people who are angry at that "wealthy" Roger Ebert for suggesting that illegal immigrants aren't, by and large, taking away American jobs.

First, some perspective...

There is a WORLD of difference between a legal minimum wage job and the work performed by many illegal immigrants.

Say you get a "lowly" job at McDonald's for minimum wage (I put "lowly" in quotes because I respect anyone willing to work ANY job).

The second you get that job, you get benefits. Even at minimum wage. You get unemployment benefits should you lose your job. You get social security benefits (should the program still exist by the time you retire).

You even get some benefits most people don't think about. You get the benefit of not having to hide your money. You can take your check to ANY bank and open an account. You have a legitimate, paying, legal job that you can reference on an apartment lease. And so on.

Illegal workers do not have these benefits. Or at least not all of them. Furthermore, for all of the risks that their employers take in hiring them, the appeal is that they can pay them lower wages AND not have to pay employer taxes on them. That a head of lettuce doesn't cost as much as a New York Strip is partly due to the relatively low employee overhead the growers maintain.

The misconception is that these illegal workers are somehow earning legal wages.

If these workers were suddenly given immunity and allowed to legally stay, and these employers were suddenly forced to treat them as legal workers (or conversely, if employers were suddenly forced to kick all illegal off their fields and only hire "Americans"), the result on the economy would not be good. Prices would skyrocket because now the employers not only have to pay each worker much more, but also have to foot all of the associated taxes that come with hiring employees.

In other words, all of us would have to subsidize this "job creation" with massive inflation in places like the grocery store.

So when Roger says that these illegal immigrants are doing jobs that almost no American citizen would, he means it. Many of them work for LOWER than minimum wage standards and will never, ever gain the benefits or freedoms with their money that any citizen would.

Now, I'm not saying that this system is justified, but it is what it is. There is no easy way to fix it without creating plenty of other huge problems.

Republicans are the problem.

Mr. Tigges,

I would like to point out that the so-called Heartland does not have a monopoly on real middle class Americans, and large cities such as Chicago are not monolithic ivory towers from which monocled aristocrats chortle amongst themselves at the plight of the underclass. Given that about half of all Americans live in large urbanized areas, either much of the country is essentially comprised of fake citizens, pretenders to the title of "American", or you need to reevaluate your views of your fellow countrymen.

I do, however, agree with your main point, that we have too many people who aren't taking care of themselves and look to the government to do it for them. As much of our government's expenditures are towards Medicare and Social Security, it is irrefutable that our whole society is being dragged down by greedy old people who insist on retiring at the still-vigorous age of 65. If we want to get our economy back on track, the government ought to immediately cease taking care of these heartless leeches. Their sense of entitlement is outrageous, and if these individuals were at all responsible and interested in taking care of themselves, they would nobly persist at their labor until the day they drop dead on the factory floor. It is, indeed, only decent.

Have you read the article Fareed Zakaria write in Time about conservative idealogy? If not, it's at this link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html

Also, when do we get to see Citizen Ebert running for Congress? I'd vote for you, even if I don't live in Chicago (though with Chicago politics, I gather that might not be an issue).

The constant, increasing embrace of outright lies and the lack of any vestige of shame about doing so has cost the Republicans their most important virtue: the moral high ground.

They are still running on the memories of when they stood for classical virtues and moral authority, but the base is pulling back out of disgust and the continuing difficulty of convincing themselves that a lie is not a lie, and a liar who is caught lying should be ashamed, not openly defiant of the truth.

Alot of Democrats are disenchanted, too. Hopefully both parties are fading out to make way for something(s) a little better (a little's about all we can hope for). I think that's possible - even probable.

Roger,

I'm sorry to tell you Western civilization is what is slowly fading away... it's a ponzi scheme house of cards built on a foundation of debt ridden sand. It will blow away soon... First Europe, then the US. We are in classic empire decline. Creativity, dynamism and entreprenurial risk taking will flow Eastward as westerners overextend its militarism abroad and atrophy at home under a ever expanding nanny state domestically.

You're still under the illusion that one party under this two party -one headed monster actually cares. They don't. One party is controlled by big brother Rupert Murdoch. The other by money changer George Soros.

Obama has proved himself to be nothing but a sellout. Ask yourself why Goldman Sachs gave him more money than anyone else? He expanded the wars and didn't even bother to ask congress for permission. And the Patriot act was extended. Could you imagine the outrage if Bush did such brazen things?

His financial reform only allows the "too big to fails" become bigger and more consolidated while the "Regulations" under Dodd Frank put he screws to smaller local banks who actually acted responsible. It also expands the power of the Federal Reserve... the real snake in this whole scheme to destroy our currency by endlessly printng more and more dollars to feed Wall Streets as well as foreign banks INSATIABLE appetite to act irresponsible.

His joke of a health care reform excludes all his corporate cronies who paid into his till. This is all classic corporatism. The middle class entrepreneur, the real engine of job creation, is toast. With that engine of dynamic change and prosperity gone, the corporatist government will just hand out cash to keep the little people quiet. The Romans called it bread and circus. Turn on the TV sometime if you don't believe me. The rich get bailouts. The poor get handouts and the middle class get the bill.

The only problem is the East, who actually concerns itself with building, creating, manufacturing and designinng will soon stop financing our welfare/warfare states and the euro/dollar will crash.

Funny how its always Lieberals who claim the Republican party is in the dustbin of history, particularly after the Lieberals get shellacked in elections.

The reality is that a good many people in this country don't like the direction we are being led in.

Some of us already pay too much taxes - over 40% of my gross income last year - while others pay none. Reform the tax code and make the 47% of Americans who paid zero last year pay their fair share.

Some understand very well that Obamacare will end up being more expensive and less effective; one has only to to look at other countries with similar systems to figure that out.

Some understand that the word "illegal" in illegal immigrant means they should be kicked out, not given a license to steal money and resources from the taxpayers.

Some understand that the government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. Giving the clowns in DC yet more money is just stupid.

Funny that its the Lieberals in their ivory towers who don't get any of it. They're too busy whining.

Thanks Roger. We are becoming a plutocracy and it is sad. As long as the right wing refuses all compromise, democracy fails. Watching democracy die is like watching a person die from Alzeimers. It's a slow progression, but painfully obvious. The mourning lasts a long time.

I hope my son remembers what it was like before the Ayn Rand cultists took over.

What is perhaps the saddest thing about your entry is that what you state is not only true, it is painfully self-evident. And yet, there is still "debate".

Orwell said it best: "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

On that note, the Onion provides sorely needed perspective: "Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined"

(http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/)

Wait, this is the MOVIE critic, right?? Enough said.

Ebert: 2. Health Care. Most Americans in both parties are in favor of Medicare and the recent expansion called Obamacare. We remain the only developed nation in the world without universal health care.

Greece has free universal health care. Need I say more?

I agree with the posters who insist you provide corroborating evidence for your political averments, Mr. Ebert. Can you cite a few media sources? I am confident that you did not fabricate these platforms yourself from the ether.

Speaking of which, you would be an exemplary political writer for any candidate, provided you could verify your statements.

I've always admired Ebert as a film critic - he's the best in the world! - (we have such similar tastes and his reviews say what I cannot say quite so elequently...)

Here he is talking politics, and as a conservative I'm upset that I agree with him 100%.

I wish he was wrong, but he isn't. The teabaggers are a cancer infecting the body of rational conservatism. Another leftie I admire, PZ Myers, thought things couldn't be worse than Reagan - who I voted for), changed his mind with the Bushes ('so much worse! - again, I voted for...) and is stunned by the teabaggers who made, to his eyes, Reagan seem almost 'liberal'!

I begrudgingly voted Obama because of Palin and her extreme idiocy (though there was a lot to like about an intellectual president, and BO clearly has a brain, - we've not had one of those in a while!).

I will vote Obama again because of Santorum, Bachmann and whoever the fuck else the dimwitted right put forward...

Obama is a good guy with some wrong opinions but at least he's freaking human unlike the subhumans the hijacked GOP are putting out right now...

Roger,
I do apologize for being a bit too combative. Perhaps it was a too emotionally charged response. The fundamental thing here to me is that you're not arguing but offering platitudes, which in some ways attacks the genuine, well thought out, reasoned and convicted views of many ordinary people. But some of that response was a bit much, though I have to admit humorous at times. I mean the pictures are a bit bad on this one... Thanks for you work. Probably no need to publish this one.

Kudo's to the idea that Obama, for all the misinformation, has not mistepped once. This causes steam to come out of the right wing media and politicians. Hence this awful heatwave.

"Most Americans in both parties are in favor of... Obamacare."

This is flatly untrue. Every poll taken when it was passed showed a slight majority of the public disagreeing with Obamacare. And most Americans in the Republican party (and the Tea party, since you're giving them full-blown third-party status) are certainly *not* in favor of Obamacare.

Some of the points you make are fine and good, but the overall effect is lessened when you print things that are just not true.

Roger, love reading your reviews, but please stay out of politics. Especially if all you are going to do is repeat typical Democrat talking points. Cases in point: Claiming that most Americans are in favor of Obamacare, and that 71 percent of Americans are in favor of raising taxes (and I won't even touch your comments about immigration). These are quiet simply not true, as evidenced by the Republican landslide during the last election cycle. If they keep on the path they are on, it will be DEMOCRATS that will soon be history.

Signed,

An Independent Voter

There is an old book "The True Believer", by Eric Hoffer, that sheds light on fanaticism.

Bravo. It is becoming clearer and clearer to me the reason the US has for the last decade lagged behind the rest of the developed world in almost every respect, not limited to human rights and taxation. As long as Republican ideology holds back the country from doing what all other successful, healthy nations have done for their own safety, the country can never advance.

At those blaming the financial crisis on oil, take a look at why oil was allowed to so completely devastate the economy in the first place. Dependence on it and the fact that some fat cat somewhere said "OH NO, WE'RE GONNA RUN OUT!" lost hundreds of thousands of jobs of people in no way connected to the supply chain of oil. Also, you're fooling yourself if you think the astronomical bail out did anything but placate the devils at Goldman Sachs with fat bonuses. When they cried "BUT WE WILL BE DEMORALISED WITHOUT THEM!", did no one realise that they were essentially holding a knife to the throat of the government, threatening more casualties to their exceptional greed?

The right wing and their new fundamentalist rhetoric can't fall off the radar soon enough.

U.S. taxpayers LOSE 1.3 BILLION with Chrysler bailout.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t2

Meanwhile, such "wasteful spending" like SPACE EXPLORATION is being diverted to such more important programs like Muslim outreach, and 'climate change' study.

Boy, I feel proud to be American...

If the presidential election were held today, Obama would lose in a LANDSLIDE.

Roger,

I think you're pretty far off base on a few of these. I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans support tougher immigration laws and the vast majority support Arizona's immigration law.

People DO support universal healthcare, but not really under the current law we have. I think more than 50% oppose it now. Some of the others you brought up are pretty evenly split among the American public.

I agree that the Republican Party is on its way to obscurity, but it's because they're having their base split by other parties like the Libertarians who are making headway and, of course, the Tea Party. The more votes they split, the more democrats will win.

Jerry Ryan,

"Not a ONE" evangelical leader has sought a bigger role in government? What about Pat Robertson' and Jerry Falwell's law schools dedicated to inserting religious law into government? What about Candidates--Bachmann for instance? How about a Catholic candidate who has pushed a religious agenda? Gingrich published a book in which he wholeheartedly pursued the passage Christian laws and then became a candidate. You should be ashamed of yourself for that bold of a lie.

"Intelligent Design is not Creationism no matter how much the left shouts it." How DARE you claim that? In Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Republican appointed judge was appalled at that fact that Intelligent Design textbooks had literally replaced the words "Creation" with "Intelligent Design." Look it up and then never say something that untrue with that much confidence again. And Randy Masters, shame on you for agreeing with him.

Here's a something I've been thinking of lately and perhaps you'd like to use it as a twitter thing....which is

In a parallel universe...(and then say some funny thing)

But in this case I'll say,

In a parallel universe, all of these Republicans are all nobodies sitting at home and telling their family "God is telling me...I should... make mashed potatoes...no, wait that's my body."

Unfortunately on Financial Reform the Democrats have been complicit in watering down any kind of true reform. The president has picked more "savvy wall street veterans" to permeate his administration. This will only lead to further huge gains and losses in financial markets, where financial executives enjoy huge payouts win or lose. Which leads to the worst outcome of all: gifted people who could be making contributions in teaching, medicine, engineering or the arts make a rational decision to work on wall street where the compensation is huge and nearly guaranteed. A tremendous opportunity lost for our nation.

I've seen a few people on here suggesting you are just a bleeding heart not using your brain.

I just have to ask them - How come 90% of the intelligent educated over 30's tend to be center-left?

Josh:
An added book:
"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney.

Tyler H:
(#3) Church and State - Those who oppose state intervention in education, would also oppose any state attempt to mandate the inclusion of pseudo-science in curricula.
What?

(#6) Eco-goodness - This would be a mixed bag. The libertarian wing of the GOP would want to end subsidies across the board (including energy subsidies).

Again, ALL the Libbies that I know, also want the elimination of the EPA, Clean Water Act, etc. Why? Because it's "big" government encroaching on the free market.

Evan:
Here we go. Republicans are "anti-science", "anti-nature", "anti-woman" (never mind the misogynists are on the left when you see how Michelle Bachmann, Sara Palin, etc. are being attacked), "anti-gay", "anti-senior citizen", etc. etc. etc.

Look at the Republican Party as it currently stands! They are anti-science. See book mentioned, above.

There aren't any misogynists out there. It's you, Tea Baggers, trying to spin away the fact that they are two of the biggest doorknobs currently in politics.

It's hilarious how you're trying to spin it: The lefties are sexists!

As a FYI, 87% of elected Federal Republican politicians do not believe in Climate Change/Global Warming, and it's about the same for scientific evolution.

Here are just a few of the wondrous examples of their ignorance/stupidity:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55731.html
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/02/10/10241/dino-flatulence/
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/21/274859/limbaugh-the-killer-116-heat-index-is-manufactured-by-the-government/
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/20/john-boehner-cites-cow-farts-as-justification-for-his-environmen/2
http://www.desmogblog.com/lord-monckton-and-rep-john-shimkus-declare-global-warming-emissions-plant-food
http://thefire.org/article/10346.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-23-steven-chu-explains-to-joe
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/12/politics/main2917719.shtml

that's all well and good Ebert. but when are you gonna start talking about important issues? like giving The Big Lebowski the fourth star it deserves.

Ebert: Hey! I made it a Great Movie!

Roger, I agree wholeheartedly. Where are the intellectually honest Republicans? When I was a kid, we had 'em in spades. I even voted for Bush in 1988. Today, I vote Democrat because it seems everyone in the GOP is in bed with the lunatics. They've found a way to dupe millions of Americans into supporting a grab-bag "tea party" whose only real accomplishment is tax abatement for the super-rich.

'dephlogisticated' is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

I'd rather be a 'tea bagger' than 'tea bagee'.

Plus all those websites you cite have a leftist bias.

Nice try fruitcake.

NO COUNTRY needs illegal aliens. What would be useful is legally controled immigration and having less greedy companies who employ only illegals. With establishing a better legal immigration and an amnesty for everybody already in the USA except those involved in criminal activities would do much better...especially for the mexicans who are often treated like slaves.

"Tea Bagger" is someone DOING the act. So: liberals are the ones on the receiving end.

In short- Democrats were 'tea bagged' in 2010. Get ready for more 'tea bagging' in 2012.

If the Tea Party is such a 'fringe group', the GOP wouldn't of won a historic, landslide victory in 2010.

Plus, the Tea Party isn't just for Republicans. There are plenty of Democrats in the Tea Party.

Some of the biggest misogynists are on the left. Case in point: Shultz, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher..

The Democrat Party will EXPLOIT any 'victim' group: minorities, women, the poor, homosexuals, etc.

Face it libtards: America is a center-right country.

An idiot liberal cited these sites:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55731.html
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/02/10/10241/dino-flatulence/
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/21/274859/limbaugh-the-killer-116-heat-index-is-manufactured-by-the-government/
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/20/john-boehner-cites-cow-farts-as-justification-for-his-environmen/2
http://www.desmogblog.com/lord-monckton-and-rep-john-shimkus-declare-global-warming-emissions-plant-food
http://thefire.org/article/10346.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-23-steven-chu-explains-to-joe
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/12/politics/main2917719.shtml

Thanks for pointing to some leftist sources! LMAO..
Think Progress? CBS News? Politico? And all those tiny liberal blogs...

Boy, you are a bigger idiot than I thought.

You know you're in trouble when the 'reasonable' Republican voice in the room is John Boehner's. A pundit contended yesterday that the tea party fringe has grown into a noisy G.O.P cult of the wooden headed. I quote, "Unfortunately they don't know enough to know what they don't know."

Here's a way to find out how much your representatives know. Give them a quick and easy 20 question quiz @ civicsquiz.com. If they can't get half these questions right, well...

(Good luck getting a response - remember student Amy Meyers' challenge to legal eagle, Looney Tunes O'Bachmann)

> "It's not tea. It's corporate kool-aid."

Swiped!

Let's look at some of the left's heroes, shall we?

Cold-blooded killer, Che Guevara
Pol Pot
Larry Flynt
Richard Dawkins
Joseph Stalin
Gloria Steinhem
Bill Maher
Hunter S. Thompson
Margaret Sanger
Mao Tse Tung
Karl Marx
Stephen Colbert
Barrack Hussein Obama
Charlie Darwin
Charles Manson
Jesse Jackson
Jon Stewart
Al Gore

Pretty impressive bunch, huh?

Thank you for clearly explaining why I am disgusted with the Republicans.

The whole point of this article seems to be that more people agree with you, Mr. Ebert, than otherwise. This isn't true, not matter how much you want it to be. Citing biased polls and recycling Democratic talking points won't make it so.

I don't think the Republican Party has been anywhere near the middle ground on anything in my lifetime. (I'm almost 30.)

Roger, you and your readers might be interested in this blog which contains some striking data that supports your argument: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/g-o-p-governors-swing-right-leaving-voters-behind/

Republicans are headed towards "obscurity"? Who the hell was it that won the historic, landslide victory in 2010?

Also add this to your crack pipe: No President Since FDR Has Won a Re-election With An Unemployment Rate Over 8%. And Obama ain't no FDR.

Democrats = good
Republicans = bad.

Okay, I got it. Thanks, Roger.

Al Gore has been demonized for his crusade on the issue. Al Gore is correct.

First, is it "global warming" or "climate change"? Whenever it's the Biggest Blizzard In Fairbanks In Thirteen Days, it's no longer global warming.

The reason I'm skeptical about Gore's end-of-the-world is that I've heard variations of this before. First it was the population bomb and that by 2000 the US would have a population of 32 million because of famine. Then, in the 80s, "if trends continue" New York will be under two miles of ice by 2010. If the Large Hadron Collider goes on line, Earth will be swallowed by the black holes it creates. And so on and so on and so on.

I'm not saying the Earth isn't warming. I'm sure it is. And I'm sure carbon emissions are compounding the issue. But how severe is it really? Notice that the press was hyperventilating about the issue during the Bush administration, but now that Obama is president, not a word. What happened? Gore preaches doomsday and then has a $30,000 electric bill for one year. Do as I say, not as I do.

As a result, whenever I hear the sky is falling, the first thing I do is look for acorns. Or ACORN. Take your pick.

3. Church and State. I seem to recall you professing to be a Christian, yet you seem to be angry at those who claim to believe what The Bible tells us to be true. If you do not believe in The Bible, then why profess to be a Christian, because you have no basis for your faith? If God did not create the world then who did? Do you believe in another God or is Evolution more of a God to you then a theory? I ask this respectfully, because it seems like common sense that believers in God would also believe he created it and want it taught at least as a theory if not as absolute truth. Yet Evolution, by which Darwin said would be proven untrue if a transitional fossil is never discovered, is supposed to be taught as a scientific absolute? It is called the "missing link" for a reason, it is still missing! Even if Evolution is true, it stands to reason that a Christian would assume it was God's way of creating different species and therefore, both Creationism and Evolution should be taught. However, it is only a hostile nature that is shown by you toward Creationism and many other liberals who confess to believe in a God who they don't want children to hear about when it comes to how the planet and universe were formed. Where is the sound logic?

I'll address this one too, to clear up another misconception that seems to be constantly promulgated by those on the right with respect to evolution. There are many transitional fossils (Tiktaalik, the whale sequence: Indohyus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, etc., the horse sequence: Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, etc.). The fallacy that there are no transitional fossils can be debunked with just a few minutes of web searching. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Let's look at some of the left's heroes, shall we?

According to whom? I'm a lefty, and I'll give you my impression.

Cold-blooded killer, Che Guevara
Pol Pot
Larry Flynt
Joseph Stalin
Mao Tse Tung
Charles Manson

None of the above (guess you just made those up, huh? Threw them in just to try to taint the others? Why am I not surprised?)

Hunter S. Thompson
Margaret Sanger
Karl Marx

Questionable

Richard Dawkins
Gloria Steinhem
Bill Maher
Stephen Colbert
Barrack Hussein Obama
Charlie Darwin
Jesse Jackson
Jon Stewart
Al Gore

Yup, I agree these are a pretty impressive bunch. Have made far more important contributions than you apparently have.

Roger,

A question / challenge just on the issue of liberal bias in the press in this debt ceiling debate:

Do you not see the one-sidedness in the press? Really?

I woke up this morning to a Yahoo News story with a headline that says something like "GOP faces pressure to compromise..."

Only the GOP faces pressure? Only the GOP needs to compromise?

Both sides have dug in to intractable positions. GOP says no deal if tax increases. Obama/Reid say no deal without tax increases.

Yet the relentless drumbeat from the press is that the GOP is being "intransigent". Really? Did they miss Obama saying he would not do a deal even if it cost him his presidency if it did not have tax increases? Did they then come out and call him intransigent? No, they did not.

Who writes headlines like "GOP under pressure to compromise..."? Liberals, that's who. Liberals write the articles. Liberals edit the articles. Liberals write the headlines. And you get a one-winged press that only sees "intransigence" on one side of a stalemated negotiation.

Do you really not see that?

How about another one this week: Debbie Wasserman-Shulz goes after Congressman West on the floor of the House of Representatives. West responds in an email, calling her attack from the floor of the House despicable. What is the news cycle tonight? Will West apologize.

Really? Why only West? Did he attack someone on the floor of the House? No. Why is West the only one the press is asking to apologize?

There is liberal bias in the press all day every day. Do you really not see it?

Let's make history here. Agree with me on one simple honest fact, which is this:

Obama/Reid are currently just as intractable in their position of no deal without tax increases as Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans are intractable in their position of no deal with tax increases.

That's just a fact.

Why doesn't the media report it that way?

I'm his opponent. I'm not bought and paid for. Here's an issue where educated people can look at the evidence and disagree, and get painted as "deniers". It's an absurd position to claim that the only ones who disagree are paid for. That's denial in itself.

Al Gore is a huckster. Living in a wantonly un-green home while telling the rest of us to do better. He's set up companies to profit in the "green" economy, but he's not suspect in pushing AGW wealth transfer schemes. No, he's an angel.

You make Roger's point. Ad hominem attacks trying to draw focus away from the argument. Who cares what kind of house Al Gore lives in? This isn't about him. It's about where the science is on this issue. And there isn't much disagreement among educated people about climate change and what's causing it. There is some disagreement about the details, and some necessary uncertainty within the models, but no scenario there is rosy. Just how dire the situation is is debatable, but suggesting we don't need to do anything about it will certainly get you painted as an anti-science "denier" by reasonable folks not bought and paid for, and rightfully so.