I See Crazy People
Once upon a time, the Republicans got a Republican who they didn't really like very much elected to the Presidency. When he ran for reelection, their support was tepid, at best, because, horror of horrors, he'd broken a pledge not to raise taxes rather than borrow a few hundred billion and he hadn't "finished the job" in a war he'd otherwise won pretty handily.
They were not happy with him. He was the only President they had, at the moment, however, so they gave him money when they had to, they planned on gritting their teeth and voting for him (if they didn't decide to vote for Perot, 'cause he seemed like a level-headed, even-keel kind of guy). Other than that, they mostly sat on their asses the whole year, even as the economy headed south. "Tepid," was the best you could call them in their support.
Then they lost the election to a smarter, tougher, hungrier Democratic candidate with one of the best political minds of his generation.
As it happened, back in those long ago days of the early 90s, my employment brought me into frequent close contact with people who were middling important in North Carolina Republican circles, the kind of people who had pix of themselves shaking Ronny and George H.W.'s hands in both formal and extremely casual settings on their vanity walls. I was, therefore, in a position to observe their reaction to the election of William Jefferson Clinton.
Blind, vitriolic, raging, unhinged fury. The kind fury you usually only see in rich people who've found out that something they had forgotten they owned was stolen.
My position at the very bottom of a harsh food chain dictated a certain, ahem, discretion in the discussion of things political, but I remember thinking this was odd behavior on their part. "How odd," I said to myself. "They griped about GHWB incessantly, supported him tepidly, sent signals to all the world that they wouldn't take the trouble to pee on him if his heart was on fire if doing so would make them late for cocktails, and, yet, here they are, raving in furious surprise that he lost. It's almost as if they think elections are just silly little meaningless rituals, mere formalities, by which Republican rule is legitimated."
In my mind, 1992 was when the Republicans gave in and were consumed by their old love affair with anger and grievance, like recovering alcoholics succumbing to allure of a forty year old scotch. Anger and grievance have been an important part of Republican politics, on and off, for decades. McCarthy, and Nixon, Atwater and Halderman. Its been there at least since FDR kicked their sorry asses out of power in the thirties, but it was always something they thought they could handle, something they could quit anytime they wanted.
By 1994, they were clearly irretrievably addicted to it, like people who'd graduated from binge drinking to full time alcoholism, from skin-popping to mainlining, from blow to crack to meth. That addiction has dominated our politics for the last sixteen years. Having become pervasive, it was inevitable that they would come to rely upon it.
Anger and hate are addictive. All strong emotions are addictive. They can become as familiar as your skin and the prospect of living without them is as frightening, perhaps more frightening, than whatever it was that scared you into being angry and hateful in the first place.
And that, alas, is where I am very much afraid many Republicans are right now. They are at a point where their anger and sense of grievance have brought them, inevitably to a dead end, and that makes them angrier and more aggrieved.
Worse, their leaders are enabling them, encouraging them, validating and glorying in that anger and sense of grievance because they are, themselves, the very embodiments of anger and grievance. (Irony no. 2,454,323 of this campaign: the National Review cover last summer that christened Michelle Obama "Ms. Grievance.")
Possibly this is just the last spasm of the anger and fear and hatred that have driven Republican politics for the last sixteen years, like a light bulb filament that flares brightly before it burns itself out. That would be a good thing, for them and for the country. We do need two parties. We cannot have a democracy without two parties. But we also cannot have a democracy without rational parties and reasoned disagreement, and that's been sorely lacking of late. If the hatred burns itself out in favor of the at least moderately respectful squabbling that used to be the norm, that would be a worthwhile achievement for an Obama administration.
What I'm afraid of, however, is that we could be witnessing the birth of something new--a Republican party in which the hate and the anger and grievance have burned away every last vestige of reason and they could turn into a party better suited to the streetbrawling thuggery of the Weimer Republic than to American democracy. Certainly, there are powerful forces that would love to move the party in that direction--Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Dobbs, Giuliani, Inhofe and Palin.
What I'm still more worried about of late, however, is that the closer they come to a crushing defeat, the more they sound like the Likudniks in the weeks leading up to the Rabin Assassination. Yeah, that's worrying me a lot just lately.
What seems like an eternity ago, I became very incensed at a comparatively oblique mention of Bobby Kennedy's assassination by Hillary in a response to a question about why she didn't quit. I looked at the anger of some of Hillary's supporters and the possibility that some particularly disturbed supporter would listen to her say that and, instead, hear "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Well, as a class, the Republicans are better armed, more enthusiastic, even romantic, about the use of violence to solve political problems, and they're ticket is headed up by a guy with the emotional control of a two year old and a gun waving. rabble rousing ignoramus in heels.
Dammitahell, I hit "Submit" by accident.
Here's the quote from an earlier post of mine that was supposed to go in the gap at the bottom of the post:
I reiterate: the danger presented by the most unhinged Hillary supporter at the most heated point in the primary is minuscule compared to frothing lunacy being whipped up by McCain and Palin. Which candidate do you think the people who made up the rank and file of the militia nut fringe during the 90s are supporting?
October 9, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
McPAlin, of course.
I have been worried about this also -- down to the comparisons of Obama with Lincoln and JFK. Do the comparers not know what happened to Lincoln and JFK!?
And though I know it needs discussion in order that such be prevented, I've not know how to raise the issue responsibly. You've done that, and I appreciate it.
The media have GOT to expose the vicious -- and racist -- incitements, which are quite deliberate (see the "Salon" article about Palin and the AIP), for what they are in order that they be STOPPED. So long as they are under the radar, whether because at Republican-only rallies, or because the media doesn't report them, they are terrifying.
And that's what the McPalin efforts come down to: terrorism. Trying to hold the country hostage to their America-hating lunacy.
Now, what do we DO to put a stop to it?
October 10, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The rabble rousers have got to be "outed." The media must follow up. These people cannot be allowed to speak hate and then fade into the woodwork.
In my view to have Palin, a woman who does not differentiate between private and public, speaking sludge, and to encourage other citizens to do likewise is to raise the private hate speech we know occurs behind doors to a public level where it's ok to say it out loud.
This is a grave danger in our society. It's like the mcShame campaign has let a genie out of bottle. There must be consequences. People need to be reminded that what they say in public may be broadcast in public. It may remain forever on the web. It may cost them a job one day.
Words matter. Actions have consequences.
Thanks, Steve, for this post.
October 10, 2008 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful post. I was thinking about this a lot when watching the Republican National Convention. The intensity of the response to Giuliani and then to Palin, and particularly the red meat that they doled out. What they really got off on was sticking it to the liberals, the "elites." It was the delirium of a frat party, where mockery is the source of the most enduring meaning and passion.
The first 2/3rds of McCain's speech, where he attempted to present himself as the uniter candidate, drew nothing but yawns and tepid clapping, because the Republican core doesn't want to unite anyone; they want to stomp on some effete liberals. They awoke a bit when McCain went POW, for this after all an important symbol of the right--the betrayed soldier--but essentially they were deeply let down. They came for more ass-kicking.
Now, I'll admit that I joke plenty about conservatives, and I think certain folks really do deserve prison time, like Katherine Harris, Cheney, Gonzo, Rove, Goodling, and a few more. But our conventions, gatherings, and speeches don't feature the emotional tenor that could be paired up with a lynch mob or fascist rally.
I think we're seeing a few Republicans recognize this, as much as they hate to admit it. Brooks and Frum, for example, have been fully attracted to the populist everyman of modern conservatism, but it's being laid terribly bare these days. Its ugliness is fully on display, and hopefully more Republicans will continue to recoil from what has clearly become the center of the party.
October 9, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intellectuals might, but conservative Brownshirts will follow whatever piper plays the right tune. For instance, Sarah Palin. They don't just like Palin, they love her. Despite being introduced to her a month and a half ago, despite that fact that she's clearly more ignorant than are most of them are, they love her. Z-E-A-L-O-T-S.
October 10, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that that was the same Rudy who whipped a crowd of beer drinking, shirtless NYC cops into a frenzy at an earlier juncture in his checkered career.
October 10, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The close-minded mentality of the Republican party these days is what scares me the most. The inability to see beyond one's own nose, put oneself in others' shoes, what have you.
I like to think that once Obama is in the White House, that will end. But these folks aren't going to give him a chance to do what he has to for our nation, even though the Dems will rule in the House and Senate. These folks will watch for every mis-step, they will hate him every time he appears on television, they will hate and hate and hate...
Unfortunately and yet oddly enough, they will hate seeing their life savings go down the drain over the next few months, and once things settle (as I hope and trust they will) in the markets by next January, they will start to equate him -- reluctantly -- with the market fix.
October 10, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
To correct my last paragraph there, "FORTUNATELY" and yet oddly enough....
Although, to Republicans, they will view it as unfortunate.
For a time, anyway.
October 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes this addictive raging will go on for the next 8 years. Some people never get over a divorce.
October 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is some potential upside for Obama, maybe. The Freepers expect Obama to be the worst president we've ever had. They call him a socialist (the irony of our current situation under Bush seems lost on them), Marxist, terrorist, you name it. It will be easy for him (or anyone, for that matter) to exceed such low expectations. They question is, will they acknowledge it?
October 10, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just checking out the Freeper goings-on, and the feelings over there seemed to range from the merely depressed to the deeply aggrieved. The depressed I can understand, but the aggrieved? After 8 years and 4 separate catastrophes of the Bush administration, where the hell do they get off feeling aggrieved about a damn thing?!
It's like a keep repeating, the Republican party is filled with zealots and has become a danger to the republic.
October 10, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The degree of danger is seen if you look at what is animating the mask that is Palin.
October 10, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting background from personal perspective. Thanks for sharing it.
I was shocked that there were not more people speaking out and reprimanding McCain and Palin for not rebuking and denouncing those at recent rallies that shouted out 'terrorsit' and 'kill him' about their opponent.
On Rachel Maddow's show tonight her guest suggested that the campaign just denies that McCain or Palin heard the comments which is ridiculous because even McCain acted shocked when he heard but then he smiled and said nothing about it but went on to fruther incite the crowd. So that is just BS and no one should accept that answer from the McCain camp.
I would expect at least some religious leaders to speak out about it. What they are doing could actually end up putting them in danger themselves. I know that they have the secret service but they are really out of bounds with the hatred they are sewing.
McCain and Palin have proven themselves unfit for public office of any kind in my opinion.
October 10, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen this go both ways. It's part of the problem.
The joke is that the people who go into the rage are never that important to the party or truly close to the power.
I have found that the people who are *truly* in power, get on quite well with the people on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because the elite in this country come in both flavors -- and hob-nob with the same corporate folks who have the money to keep them there.
It's what Orwell cleverly called:
October 10, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that the crazed lynchmob they're whipping up--for no politically useful purpose, I might add--is going to look like "the base" to the Republicans of the future (i.e. 2009-2017). They're either going to have to embrace that base or discard it and start over. The forward thinking politician would see the mob as a dead end, and start over, trying to build a base from scratch with new ideas.
Forward thinking has not exactly been a halmark of the Rebublican establishment for close to three decades now. Most of them will play with the mob. And therein lies the problem.
Throughout history, politicians who've whipped up mobs for immediate political gain have found that once whipped up, mobs tend to stay whipped up. Like I said, anger and hate are addictive. Like all addictive drugs, they are thriling and instill the addict with a false sense of empowerment. As a result, the mob mentality become a self-sustaining reaction. Then the politicians who started it find themselves facing an ugly choice: either either try to stay ahead of that force by advocating ever more extreme ideas, or else get eaten, digested and excreted by it.
And, yes, our party had, and still has, its share of anger addicts. Speaking of getting on with the other side. When intervention time came, it is interesting to note how many of our anger addicts eagerly joined in with the other side's anger addicts rather than try to kick the habit.
October 10, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly correct.
October 10, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
TCFKANCSteve, that is a fab explication of mobs and mob behavior.
Kudos.
October 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed a similar pattern. I come from a family of Republicans, and I have been regarded with suspicion by them for 40 years--you cannot even bring up the subject of Clinton with them. They become apoplectic. Some of them are highly educated. My father has two masters degrees and a law degree. And yet they have all become fascists. They did not start out that way--but over the years, something happened.
They were terribly upset over Nixon's resignation--and they despised Carter--but they built Ronald Reagan up into some kind of God from Mt Olympus. If I said anything against Reagan it was like I was pissing on the alter of the Church. Again, they did not LOVE GHW Bush--but he was one of their own.
Clinton, on the other hand, was spawn from hell. And no matter how creditable a performance he turned in, he could win no respect. And no matter how bad a performance W has turned in, they forgive him. They think his heart was in the right place, but he was betrayed by Cheney and Rumsfeld and other Neo-Conservatives, who are not true conservatives--but liberals wearing conservative feathers. And Colin Powell was done in by the same Cabal...
Now, with McCain, whom they despised in 2000 and made Manchurian Candidate jokes about--has become THEIR Gladiator. They no longer value all of those things they celebrated in their professional careers--evidence, facts, science, critical reasoning. They think with blood and earth. They are authoritarian followers, and proud of it. They are fascists. They are like the Borg. They all think the same way and march in lockstep. It's a mystery of Nature.
October 10, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know your family at all, but I'm willing to bet even money that this statement is not true... and proves the point that both sides resort to name-calling. And worse.
October 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rhetorically, he has a point. Over the last eight years, the Republican Party has increasingly braced the ideals, rhetoric, symbology, and ideological reasoning of fascism.
They espouse a form of patriotism that has nothing to do with the shared ideals and principles of the the United States and, instead, glorifies a racialized, debased "blood and soil" rhetoric. They turned Congress into a rubberstamp Reichstag for six years, willingly, even rapturously, ceding Congressional authority and responsibility to the executive.
They are nakedly, unabashedly, enthusiastically militaristic, even if they, and their children, will not serve. They've shown repeatedly that, in both foreign policy and domestic affairs, power flows from the barrel of a gun--thus giving us both the Iraq War and the signing statement based upon the purportedly limitless power accruing to a wartime "Commander in Chief." They sneer at the very concept of the rule of law and embrace naked statism, claiming the right to imprison without charge or challenge, torture, suspend any law, and to generally wipe their asses with the Constitution if that's what it takes to keep us safe.
They've embedded the government into business in such a way as to privatize profit and socialize risk, a process that is accelerating as we speak. They continually demonstrate that they believe power is personal rather than an atttribute of office (Remember Monica Goodlind asking "What makes you want to serve George W. Bush?")
They are obsessed with the regulation, control and direction of private sexual conduct between consenting adults (except for their own and their children's, of course). They have a limitless belief in the efficacy of killing people as a remedy for political and social problams. They explicitly reject the notion of objective reality and embrace the concept of the mutability of the past.
Hell, they've even got their own party anthem.
At this point, about all that's left is the development of a party uniform, and maybe their own flag. To think that this thing they've become was once the party of Lincoln is enough to make one weep.
October 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and lets not forget the scapegoating of minorities, brazen assaults on freedom of speech and of the press, the fuedalization of government office, and the elevation of xenophobia to a virtue.
October 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
All due respect, I've heard that phrase (fascist) applied to Reagan in the 80's and seen references to it applied to Nixon.
Again, we can't blame GWB for *everything.*
Finally, the Neocons and the religious right were able to co-opt the GOP -- so this is not just about "Republicanism". This is somewhat analogous to the far-left trying to co-opt the Dems -- and the Dems had to suffer for years as a result of being too extreme.
We may be seeing the end of that era as the Dems have gotten more centrist (e.g. appeal to the full middle class, not just the lower end).
It's just the pendulum swing. Once upon a time what was blue was red and vice versa (in general):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/04/electoral-history-charts.html
October 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be:
as a result of being seen as too extreme.
October 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this is the more important map:
District by District
Your map is not granular enough to tell the whole story.
October 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that map (it comes via the VOTEMASTER) but I was referring the state-by-state totals for the past 50 years.... look at a comparison between the North and the South -- and watch them flip.
October 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, that's awesome analysis. As always, you educate.
Interesting, that WJC provoked such a visceral response.
WJC did more good by this country than this president, that's for sure.
I watched some of that rage infested vid which McCain facilitated. He is such an old asshat. Unbelievable.
October 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling a fascist a fascist is like calling a toad a toad. It isn't name calling, it's classification. I have known fascists who were members of the Weathermen. I have known fascists who are retired Naval Captains. They exist.
October 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words do have meaning and can be applied when accurate. But to associate the GOP meme with fascism is about as accurate as the Dem meme with socialism.
Or, perhaps, your family really does believe in nationalism (including national socialism, national syndicalism, along with collectivism, mysticism and populism based on the nationalist values); corporatism (including class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third way); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism )
October 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. I can tell you haven't spent much time with retired Navy and Marine career officers. You are describing many of them to a T--bullet headed Republicans that they are. Where do you think the expression Bullet Headed came from? It isn't a new expression. My father is afraid, and this is no joke, that if he ever voted for a Democrat, his mother and father would haunt him from the grave while he lived.
October 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent much time with them... as well as 2 Star Generals.
Here's a story for you:
While walking into the Pentagon a few years back, we passed (as I'm sure you know) a portrait of GWB. One of the Col.'s I was with remarked to our party:
The 2 star in the group agreed with him - loudly.
Many of the military people I come in contact with (higher ranks) are very much for Obama.
Maybe your family didn't make it high enough in the ranks, or maybe your sample space was too small... but most ranking military personnel I meet don't fit any stereotype -- except that they all have a serious distaste for war. Probably because it's not a fantasy for them.
Stereotyping by profession is often as ill-conceived as stereotyping based on race, or economic status.
October 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 35 years ago I was teaching mind control techniques to the Navy Seals to help them learn to endure pain. I would not necessarily say that I was hanging out with Admirals, no. But there is a 'culture' in the military. And it is different than the culture on McDougal St in Greenwich Village in 1962, or Berkeley in 1964. If you can't make generalizations and characterizations about a culture, then there is no such thing as culture.
Do all Italians like noodles? Probably not. Yet I have never seen a menu in a restaurant in Italy that did not have them listed. Have I been in every restaurant in Italy. No. Does that mean my experience is worthless? No.
October 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only do you project your experience out, but also from a distant past.
40 years ago, people in the South voted primarily Democratic.
See the problem?
I find it ironic that we are discussing this sort of labeling and stereotyping on this particular thread. Is your experience invalid? Nope. Is it valuable for advancing causes by labeling GOPers fascist? I doubt it.
October 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might add that before the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I sat with several retired navy officers who believed we should simply drop hydrogen bombs on Iraq, turn their desert into glass, and go skating in with pads of butter on our jackboots.
You really need to spend time with some older military personel to have your eyes opened wide...I'm not saying they all think like that. But I bet McCain believes that nuclear weapons can be used tactically. I bet that is what he means when he says he knows how to win wars, or he knows how to get Bin Laden. He's planning to carpet H-bomb the whole Hindu Kush. That ought to take care of the problem.
October 10, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but the ranking military officials I have interacted with, including those retired, wouldn't come close to that extremism.
To presume on the Internet is a very dangerous game as you know. If all your experience is based on some of your father's friends, well, no wonder you get that kind of extremism. Birds of a feather and all.
I respectfully suggest you need to open *your* eyes to a larger sampling space where better insights might be had.
October 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That advice is applicable to your own experience and opinions as well.
October 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no logic in what you say.
My experience is recent and involves a sampling not based on any friends' network. And I have seen a mix.
You first claimed experience because of your father's friends. And then, after hearing I had real experience, you then claimed training Navy Seals 35 years ago. Either case, you claim they are all of one mindset.
I guess you know best: everyone in the military is in lock step in mentality -- and they are all fascists. Yep.
October 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. You are drawing non sequitor conclusions from a number of separate statements. The military culture of today has much in common with the military culture of 40 years ago has much in common with the Roman military of 2000 years ago has much in common with the Spartan culture of 2500 years ago. If you don't see this you are either deliberately obtuse, or have not devoted much time to the reading of military history. I never claimed that all Republicans, or all the military were fascists. I have no interest in making that claim. What I wrote, and a careful reading would substantiate was that I have observed a pattern of transformation over 40 years among the Republican military people I know towards a fascist set of ideals--you are the one who extrapolated that my accounting could not possible be valuable, as I have not studied all Republicans or all the military for 40 years. This is selective filtering of my point, on your part--I can only assume because you are paradigm bound and are invested in a set of apriori conclusions.
October 10, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I take exception to the definition of fascism you dug out of Wikipedia--which is always an unqualified source of information. Here is the more general definition:
"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
This Dictionary is a qualified source of informaiton. Although I would add to this definition: willing to beat up anybody who disagrees with the central authority on any point, such as Noriega's Battalon Dignidad. Or the Battalon Dignidad that McCain/Palin are constructing right now during their campaign events.
October 10, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough!
October 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was on over at Andrew Sullivan a few days ago,,
An Israeli reader writes:
Your post on "The Danger of Obama" immediately brought to mind what happened here in Israel in the period leading up to Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. Even allowing for the differences in political culture between the two countries, some of the sounds we're hearing in the public debate around the election have a haunting echo. Here no one would have thought it possible that an Israeli Jew would take the life of a high official. There's little doubt that the crescendo of demonization toward Rabin – including accusations of treason, flyers picturing Rabin as an SS officer – and the difficulty, in a society guaranteeing free speech, of 'civilizing' the public debate before it creates a fertile bed for actual violence, all helped create the context in which Rabin's murderer decided to take matters into his own hands.
I'd like to see which Republicans will denounce this turn towards demonization. And if there are no takers – maybe Joe Lieberman?
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0) ::
October 10, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of this dynamic was on display in the 1992 Republican convention response to defeated candidate Pat Buchanan's declaration of a culture war.
At that time, if memory serves, the commentariat talked about what an ugly display it was, likely to turn off independents and moderates whose votes Bush I needed at the time.
One difference this time, and it is a very large one, is that this time the basest emotions are being openly and deliberately stoked not by a defeated, relatively "fringe" candidate at the Republican convention, but by the party's nominees for President and Vice President in the closing weeks of a general election campaign.
Indeed stoking this anger, resentment, and hatred has become the core message of the Republican campaign in the closing weeks, the one they hope changes the dynamics of the race and inches them across the line in another squeaker.
October 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, you have written what many were feeling & not sure how to express.
There have been more thinking republicans coming out to confirm your thoughts. David Gergen, Michael Smerconish hit this point hard just yesterday, please let this trend continue. Unfortunately the Hannitys & Limbaughs are still leading the pack.
October 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve is telling the truth. I lived in North Carolina when Clinton was elected. Within a month, there were two bumper stickers popping up everywhere:
Impeach Clinton
Don't blame me--I voted for Bush
In my opinion, Clinton was a fine politician who went further to the center than I liked; I often tell my Republican friends that Clinton was the best Republican president of the 20th century.
October 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was to us as Eisenhower was to the Republicans. When the other party pulls off a realignment, the only way for the "out" party to win is by becoming the party of "yes, but . . ." Eisenhower was wildly popular and successful in the wake of FDR's realignment by being the candidate of "yes to the basic ideas, but we need to moderate some of the excesses" to the New Deal and internationalism, which was a cold break with the GOP's past vociferous opposition to both.
Likewise, Clinton, smart guy that he is, saw that he likewise had to the guy who said "yes, but" to the Reagan Revolution.
Long about 2016 or 2020, some Republican will win by being the man or woman who says "yes, but" to Obama's policies, because the smell of realignment is in the air, bothers and sisters.
Unless, of course, the Republicans self-destruct like the Federalists and the Whigs before them, and some new party forms to take their place in the system. That seems like at least an outside possibility right now.
October 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else think that Palin and McCain are veering close, ironically enough, to a sort of terrorism, ie. the use of violence for political ends. They sound almost ready to issue a fatwa death sentence against the next media figure that crosses them
Fatwa
Lynch mob
Take you pick. Whichever it is, I think this is a danger to democracy.
October 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm well it is a bit strange how much the Obama/Biden ticket resembles the Bush/Cheney ticket, you know younger former substance abuser at the top of the ticket, while the older Washington insider is the vice Presidential candidate. Plus did you see the ancestry.com post the other day about how Sarah Palin is related to Princess Diana and President Roosevelt, and McCain was related to some French king who united the country but OBAMA is not only related to Brad Pitt, but is also RELATED to both BUSH and CHENEY! Tell me that doesn't send shivers up your spine. lol
October 10, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the entire post--as I'm sure you can guess!-- but that line is priceless!
October 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I may have stolen it from Tolkien somewhere. It sounds like one of those wry observations on human nature that he was always projected onto his mythical beings.
October 10, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha... Yeah, that does sound like a Brit!
October 10, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post and very thoughtful comments as well. I am wondering if this mob-mentality of the McCain/Palin campaign will simply embarrass the elite of the republican party and thereby marginalize the mob. Don't forget that there are two bases in the repub party: the voting base, which is religiously conservative and malleable; and the financial base, which can barely stand to associate with the former base. This nasty behavior is turning off the republican elite, and they actually can't stand to be associated with them. I think it is safe to say that the 25% who still find W a perfectly fine President are the main supporters of McCain/Palin/McCain at this point.
They truly are an embarassment to the country, but when you have Brooks and Wills and many others calling them out for their boorish/malignant behavior it makes you wonder if they won't decide to start a 3rd party. Maybe they'll all head up to Alaska to join the secessionist movement -- good riddance.
Bad news for them: Sarah ain't comin' back! She's gonna be a Faux News Expert Commentator, and will have a juicy place on every conservative Think Tank board of directors, and will be raking it in for her pathetic family since they will only have money to make them happy.
October 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know at least one wealthy Republican who thinks Bush I was the best president in ages who is so disgusted by the stupidity that he's more than willing to see Obama win, even if he's not an outright supporter.
I've known him for five elections, now and this is the first when he didn't put a bumper sticker for the Republican candidate on his car.
October 10, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would separate the military culture from the cult of the military. I work with military officers every day, from flag rank on down in all services, and I have not detected any notable difference from the political alignment of the general population. They do have stronger feelings on the Iraq war but even there, you can call them all "pro-war" and some are deeply angry at Rumsfeld and the pack of chickenhawks who got us into that mess.
On the other hand, there is an extreme right wing that venerates the military but usually from a distance--especially from the well-heeled end of this particularly spectrum. The do not, by any means, represent the military.
Folks forget that before 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack on this country was conducted by domestic, right-wing terrorists who sprang from the extreme nationalistic militia movement. Tim McVey was in the military--as was Oswald--but I would wager a lot that his fellow troops viewed him as an outsider and loner. I think that folks also forget how much the extreme right hated WJC-- remember the stories about cocaine smuggling from Mena, Arkansas? The lists of people associated with the Clintons who had died? The black helicopters and crazy paranoia that they fed off of for eight years? They are still out there, and current events are whipping them into a frenzy.
Watch Fox News for a couple of hours this weekend--they are whipping themselves into a frenzy.
October 10, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink