Because their dads said so, that's why! The ongoing bleed-out of the Republican Party
I feel privileged to live in this time, when the world is changing. We've all seen the numbers. The GOP may be treading water with women, but they've lost the young. They've lost Hispanics. They're losing men. They're losing the suburbs. They lost the House, the Senate and the Oval Office. The killer is, now they're losing big business, and Obama is sealing the deal by bailing out Wall Street. They've lost territory - the geographical strength of the party is in the Deep South, the High Rockies and scattered among the plains - states that have checkered histories as the last bastions of slavery and separatism, home to a religious outlook that veers into the deeply superstitious. We will see Texas become Democratic, with the possible election of a Hispanic governor in 2012. Before then, the economic death spiral will arrest itself, and might start to grow again by 2011. Stocks and home prices will edge up, gingerly. Meanwhile, 40 million people will be able to go to the doctor again and millions more will see their tax burden reduced.
This is so over. But the numbers don't show the worst problem the GOP faces: Denial, which is all the rage apparently at CPAC and has even infected the GOP rank-and-file. For years I have debated politics and policy at great length with a conservative friend of mine and he does a great job of putting his positions forward. But I stopped. I just can't take it any more. Not so much that we disagree on policy, I just can't take that he refuses to accept it is a terrible problem for the GOP that at least one-third of his party is made up of nuts -Rushites, Coulterans, Palinistas, and other assorted "neocultists" who will doom his party long before they get a chance to doom America.
And there's absolutely no hope for the GOP as a national party in the near future. Based on the CPAC straw poll, we're looking down the road at Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee, none of whom could beat John McCain who couldn't beat an inexperienced Obama; Newt Gingrich, who already refused to take on this weak field who couldn't beat John McCain who couldn't beat an inexperienced Obama; Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, proven liars, objects of national ridicule already and governors of small population states that go Republican anyway; Mark Sanford, arch-conservative from a small population state in a region that likewise goes Republican anyway; Ron Paul, unelectable nutjob; Charlie Crist, a moderate who is hated by the "basest" of the base; and ... Tom Pawlenty (crickets chirping).
"Someone else" finished in the high-middle, but who? There may be whispers about Jeb Bush, who would be a formidable candidate but only to the extent of putting up the best fight, getting the most funding, and securing the closest loss - the U.S.A. has had its fill of the Bush family. Maybe we'll see the emergence of a new candidate, but the only one of any possible strength at all might be Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will not wear well on the national stage and was so weak in Texas that his reelection-by-plurality featured competition from a Republican Texas State Comptroller who ran against him as an independent and singer-satirist Kinky Friedman, lead man for Kinky and the Texas Jew Boys. All of this is somehow supposed to be tied into a force by Michael "hip hop bling bling" Steele, who has already alienated the three GOP Senators whose heads are closest to where America is now, and where it's going to be tomorrow.
Then will come the 2010 census, and the GOP is right to be in a panic. What follows is redistricting, largely controlled this time by Democrats. Eventually, immigration reform will come along, adding millions to Democratic voter rolls. Republican representation in the House will continue to contract. The Democrats will pass sixty senators. States might remain about even in governors for awhile, but in this atmosphere, Democrats will control state legislatures, the "farm teams" of national party politics.
Someone please tell me where I'm wrong. Watching the spasms of the GOP is sad, almost pathetic, and they won't bottom out until, as they say about abusive personalities, they admit they have a problem. I haven't seen any indication this is happening, though. They're still blaming others - their members who aren't "conservative enough," the good old liberal media, or their own inability to "get their message out" which translates into saying "Americans are too dumb to see how smart we are." All the while they seem convinced that their party is poised for a rebound, that they are just in a down cycle. This misreading of the American mindset is groupthink at a mind-boggling level.
I want two parties. I want the GOP to survive and provide balance. I want my conservative friend to understand that. But until he is ready to admit that his party is on the precipice of national irrelevance, it's too painful for me to talk politics with him anymore. He might as well be arguing for the existence of the Easter Bunny while I'm proving up traffic lights. And the only reason I can think of that he remains in such oblivion, that he and his fellow travelers have allowed people to have the run of their party who are verging on the insane and violent, is because everything they were taught to believe about American society, economics, and politics by their fathers was wrong. Today's GOP is so visceral on the one hand and so irrational on the other, that the only way I can explain it is that it's a reaction to a psychic attack against their core beliefs - it has made the mildly unhinged Republicans into radicals and pushed the level-headed ones deeply into denial.
Politics is as generational as following sports teams. My parents were FDR Democrats who lived through The Great Depression. That shaped how I looked at the world, until I became able to discriminate among theories of government and realized FDR was right all along. My kids are Obama Democrats who are living through The Great Recession. I am imprinting upon them while they are learning their own lessons. I am sanguine about the loss of my investments because I know my kids and my grandkids are in line for a better world, one that they will continue to improve long after I'm dead. Such is the price of victory. The price of defeat, however, seems to be a psychological break with the rational.
Unless and until something happens to bring the party back to the real world, we will marvel at a GOP train wreck that continues to unfold and will do so for many years to come. We can only wonder what will take its place.
















The GOP isn't dead, it's just re-building. To use a sports metaphor, the GOP is like the New York Yankees. At one point they were the best team that won three times as many World Series titles as any other club. They had a no-nonsense owner who tried to do things his way rather than rely on "baseball people." For years the team wasn't very good. Season upon season of mediocrity bordering on futility (the 1980s). But the day came when they got good again and won a bunch more World Series'.
It surprises me that so many people in this country are in favor of a one party system. Is that how our country was established? Did our forefathers envision a nation with one party, or did they fight a revolution to escape exactly that?
There are too many Americans who do not feel that the federal government should be given a proverbial blank check to do as it sees fit. Truth is, Barack Obama will spend more money in his first 4 years than any president in the history of this country. Another truth is that he cannot spend all this money while simultaneously granting 97% of Americans a tax break and still saying he'll trim the deficit in half. This is mathematically impossible. Of course, he when he tells us that 97% of Americans will get a tax break, he is only referring to income taxes. He fails to mention the part about raising capital gains taxes (and raising just about every other imaginable tax). It wouldn't be politically expedient to inform the public about that.
Moreover, this unprecedented level of spending is just that: unprecedented. We don't know what the long term consequences will be. In the general flow of things, businesses sometimes fail. The government's unwillingness to let ANY of the major banks fail (Citibank...)flies in the face of what we know about the business cycle. When some poor soul is a brain dead vegetable laying in a hospital bed being kept alive by machines, the plug should be pulled. The same goes for failed businesses. The only bright spot is that Wall Street, despite one bailout after another, continues to question Obama's recovery plan.
March 1, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one wants a one party system, they just want their party to be in the super majority. I have no love for the GOP, but I am sure that they must have a good idea out there somewhere. Where is it? What is it? We will never know until the more reasonable of the party grow a back bone and speak up! Stop allowing Rush, Coulter, Hannity & Co. be the loudest ones in the room. Stop exaggerating and making up numbers and do as Tucker Carlson suggested : engage in fact finding. Stop the fear mongering about Socialism and Communism because 99.9% of the people who are swallowing this have no clue what any of it really means.
March 1, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be unprecedented in the United States, but some countries with progressive tax policies have taken them to the logical end of their design: to tax the wealthy while leaving a lighter burden on those with less incomes in order to provide the necessary services that most first world governments provide. Sweden, Denmark and others are clear examples of this. Denmark has the highest tax rates in the world and has the most equal standard of living and still sitting at a ~2-3% unemployment rate even during this economic crisis.
What may be unprecedented is the inanity of the arguments against the reestablishment of a working government that can actually provide services and govern like a first world nation. The repubs have been yelling from the highest mountaintops that government can't work and so we should try to reduce it's scope in every degree as much as possible, starting with the tax rates on the wealthiest people so that it can "trickle down" and help all the little people by giving them nice, living-wage jobs or otherwise returning the bulk of that money to the people in lower tax brackets. That hasn't happened.
They've carried this argument for so long and proven time and again it's fallibility. Saying that "government can't work" isn't an argument you can make when you're trying to be in charge of the government.
It's not an argument for a 1 party system, but if one party is the party of obscure failures who can't lay claim to any empirical success stories to their policies, then maybe another party should come and replace them. Our country didn't always consist of the Democratic party and the Republican party, you know.
The founding fathers envisioned a government that would obstruct or revert any abuses of power from the other branches, not a party system. We've come along way from party bosses and I would really like to see a country that didn't have political parties, maybe more than 4 or 5 major caucuses in the congress and a strong desire to preserve the balance of power laid out in the Constitution. So far it has been the Bushies and the Republicans who supported them whole-heartedly who have stomped on this balance of power with all their might, and any damage caused will have to be repaired in time as the issues surface again.
And of course Barack Obama will spend more money in his budget than any other president before him, just as FDR spent more money than any president before him. There was a financial crisis, and the only way to fix it is to let the strongest entity around put some of it's chips in to back up the rest of us. Just because we'll have to pay for those chips in due time doesn't mean they aren't worth putting in now. Is it not worth it to own your own home because you will be indebted for over a decade until you truly own it yourself? Or starting a business with a loan?
And about banks failing, how would you like it if your bank failed? You probably wouldn't mind, since most people in the country keep less in the bank than the maximum payout for lost assets in bank insolvency. But if you do have a million dollars in the bank, would you want the government to stand by and do nothing while you lose all your money because your bank made foolish decisions that weren't overseen properly by the very entity that could help protect you and have prevented the crisis in the first place?
Christ.
March 1, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your description of Republicans, it sounds to me like an end product of Democratic propaganda. As far as I understand (and I'm not an expert), they don't want to abolish the government, they want it to limit itself to providing services that are vital to the well-being of the nation. Where I agree with them is the paradigm that once the government starts to run the lives of its citizens, it is forced to treat everyone against the lowest common denominator. If you take this to its logical conclusion, it becomes a form of control over citizens, whether direct or indirect. In contrast, republicans claim that responsible ambition and hard work that leads to rewards should be encouraged, not punished. They also insist that wealth redistribution makes people take welfare for granted and stops self-development.
As for Sweden, if that country is so great, why does everybody want to come and live here??
March 2, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg: "It surprises me that so many people in this country are in favor of a one party system."
I don't see that. The opposite is true: people don't have the same kind of party loyalty anymore...politics is more issues driven. What would be best--though our first-past-the-post elections don't really allow for it--is not a one party system but a multiparty one. As a 2000 Nader voter I feel for the enthusiasts of Ron Paul (without at all buy what he's selling) who seem to have a lot of energy and passion and (in part crazy) ideas and yet no real effect on the GOP agenda.
The two party system--the binary nature of the choices it generates--seems more and more out of step with how we interact with news media, one another, the labor market, you name it. Our system does a less than stellar job of bringing minority voices into the conversation.
So no. I think what you're reading as a celebration of one party politics is more just dancing on the grave of the Bush era.
March 2, 2009 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been my experience that conservatives have the poorest self images, are the most controlling and are the most paranoid of any people I have known. All I can say is that their childhood must have really sucked.
C
March 1, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is unlikely the GOP will win the next election. However, it is highly likely the Democrats could LOSE the election. The Congress will have been Democrat for four years and the voters will be expecting results. Either failing to provide those results, or a major incident such as a terror attack could return the GOP to power whether they deserve it or not!
March 1, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
RS
And the danger is that when the Republicans do start winning elections again, they're going to remember the "we won" mantra being freely espoused in Congress these days. At that point, they will drag us as far to the right as the current administration has taken us to the left.
This when we're all best served somewhere in the middle.
March 1, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the "middle" seems to be unoccupied territory. We definitely need some moderation, if for no other reason to return confidence than to investors, both domestic and foreign, or our economy may not recover.
March 2, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is unlikely the GOP will win the next election. However, it is highly likely the Democrats could LOSE the election. The Congress will have been Democrat for four years and the voters will be expecting results. Either failing to provide those results, or a major incident such as a terror attack could return the GOP to power whether they deserve it or not!"
I disagree with your idea RS. What's next for the American people? What matter's most here is our economic financial problem. Do you think Democrats is doing well? I don't think so. Our Government is entirely influenced by self centered political goal and it is the history unfold that democrats is nothing. After spending billions of public money for stimulus bill and buying toxic assets to control the economic system is an implication of retirement security. It's really nothing in the package. I just hope your not one of those individuals who are hurting most of the community. Plus the fact that their 20th congressional candidate is Scott Murphy, who has an outstanding unpaid taxes. Well, I can see the game is over. Pack your bag Scott.
Scott Murphy for Congress Tax Liens
March 4, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink