Remarks on Extremism at the 1964 Republican National Convention

FOR RELEASE AT 6:00 P.M., PDT, TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1964 ROBERT L. McMANUS, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR

TEXT OF REMARKS BY GOVERNOR NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BEFORE THE THIRD SESSION OF THE 1964 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION IN MOVING ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF EXTREMISM, COW PALACE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA JULY 14, 1964

Mr. Chairman, fellow delegates, I move that the following language be inserted in the proposed 1964 Republican Platform as a new full paragraph between the present sixth and seventh paragraphs under the section headed "For a Free People."

"The Republican Party fully respects the contribution of responsible criticism, and defends the right of dissent in the democratic process. But we repudiate the efforts of irresponsible, extremist groups, such as the Communists, the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society and others, to discredit our Party by their efforts to infiltrate positions of responsibility in the Party, or to attach themselves to its candidates."

The time has come for the Republican party to face this issue realistically and take decisive action. It is essential that this Convention repudiate here and now any doctrinaire, militant minority, whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Bircher which would subvert this party to purposes alien to the very basic tenets which gave this party birth.

Precisely one year ago today on July 14, 1964, I issued a statement wherein I warned that:

"The Republican party is in real danger of subversion by a radical, well-financed and highly disciplined minority."

At that time I pointed out that the purpose of this minority were "wholly alien to the sound and honest conservatism that has firmly based the Republican party in the best of a century's traditions, wholly alien to the sound and honest Republican liberalism that has kept the party abreast of human needs in a changing world, wholly alien to the broad middle course that accommodates the mainstream of Republican principles."

Our sole concern must be the future well-being of America, and of freedom and respect for human dignity - the preservation and enhancement of these principles upon which this nation has achieved its greatness.

During this year, I have criss-crossed this nation fighting for those principles, fighting to keep the Republican party of all the people - and warning of the extremist threat, its danger to the party and its danger to the nation.

The methods of these extremist elements I have experienced at first hand.

Their tactics have ranged from cancellation by coercion of a speaking engagement before a college audience to outright threats of personal violence.

These things have no place in America, but I can personally testify to their existence. And so can countless others who have also experienced:

Anonymous midnight and early-morning telephone calls.

Unsigned threatening letters.

Smear and hate literature.

Strong arm and "goon" tactics.

Bomb threats and bombing.

Infiltration and take-over of established political organizations by Communist and Nazi methods.

These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror. They have no program for America - no program for the Republican party. They have no solution for our problems of chronic unemployment, of education of agriculture, or racial injustice or strife.

These extremists have no plan and no program to keep the peace and bring freedom to the world.

On the contrary - they spread distrust. They engender suspicion. They encourage disunity. And they operate from the dark shadows of secrecy.

They have called President Eisenhower "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."

They have labeled a great Republican Secretary of State, the late John Foster Dulles, "a Communist agent."

They have demanded that the United States get out of the United Nations and that the United Nations get out of the United States.

There is no place in this Republican party for such hawkers of hate, such purveyors of prejudice, such fabricators of fear, whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Bircher.

There is no place in this Republican party for those who would infiltrate its ranks, distort its aims, and convert it into a cloak of apparent respectability for a dangerous extremism.

And make no mistake about it - the hidden members of the John Birch Society and others like them are out to do just that!

These people have nothing in common with Republicanism.

These people have nothing in common with Americans.

The Republican party must repudiate these people.

I move the adoption of this resolution.

When considering the views and behaviors of the most extreme right wingers, those who have already "taken up arms" and those whose rhetoric encourages, even inflames, such excess, the justifications they provide for their actions are based on irrational fears of the end of representative government, concentration camps, imposed religion, confiscation of weapons and property - all the kinds of things that have routinely happened throughout human history, from the Age of Empires to the Taliban.  Some on the left had these fears, as well, but I have not heard of a single left-wing militia being organized under the Bush regime. 

The most notorious American groups organized around left-wing themes that used violence to effect the change they sought were the Blank Panthers and the Students for a Democratic Society, with a nod to the short-lived Symbionese Liberation Army.  Even the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the Nation of Islam as among groups that have hateful elements in their teachings, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/nation-of-islam.  While I would never be so naïve to consider its members without weapons or categorically disinclined to violence, nor have I ever seen reports of NOI members engaging in organized, uniformed military drills.  In other words, they may preach violence but they don't practice it at a group level, possibly one difference between the "militant" and the "militia."  True, there are environmental activists who, sadly, use violence to promote their goals, but these groups do not rise to the level of "militias" as that term has adorned the Hutaree and the five hundred plus such groups dotted around the country.  In my experience as an observer, the "liberal bomb-throwers" seem to be more or less solitary figures, like the Unibomber.

The right-wing rhetoric and beliefs that drive the true militias seem to be branches from the single tree of the supremacy of the white race and a form of Christianity that Jesus Christ himself would reject.  These groups all share a passionate belief that they have been blessed with a divine entitlement to the truth, and therein lies the root of the problem: Everyone wants to feel special.  It's a shocking realization we all come to, most of us anyway, that we are spectacularly unimportant. 

There are very, very few truly special people in the history of humanity.  Ruling out those who are considered divine or at least an Ambassador of the Infinite, from Moses to Mohammed to Joseph Smith, and military conquerors from Alexander to Genghis Khan to Adolph Hitler just to keep the discussion focused, there are remarkably few who have measurably advanced the progress of humanity through their very existence.  The names that come to my mind in no particular order are Einstein, Ghandi, DaVinci, Confucius, Beethoven, Newton, Shakespeare, and those magnificent Greeks, Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato.  I regretfully struggle to place a woman on this list, Marie Curie possibly coming closest, but this may be a combination of my own gender bias or the male dominated world that preceded my modest existence by 20,000 years.  Even among humanity's great men, I know I'm missing more than a few.  And, as an American, I am tempted to add names like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.  While they were giants among our people, none of them changed our understanding of what it is to be human or the universe in which we exist. 

IIt doesn't matter anyway.  Even if we add all the presidents, all the popes, all the premiers of China and Russia, the top 100 athletes in any major field, the top 100 playwrights, film directors, actors and actresses, Nelson Mandela, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Florence Nightengale, Daniel Boone, J.R.R. Tolkien, Thomas Edison, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, Winston Churchill, Gutenberg (not Steve - Hell, OK, Steve Gutenberg, too), throw in the major emperors, warriors and conquerors whether Charlemagne, Saladin, Brian Boru, or Attila the Hun, Elvis and The Beatles and I'll even give you Pete Best, we could maybe come up with about two hundred thousand names out of the nameless billions who have walked our planet, who lived, laughed, cried and died virtually nameless.  We will name few hundred thousand who will be remembered at least for a while, but even then, there are no guarantees.  Pharaohs who built massive temples to their timeless greatness are lost to time.  In four generations, tops, no one will care that Kobe had three rings, what a  "Kobe" was, or why it even wore rings.

 

We aren't any of those people.  We never will be.  We will never know them, anyone like them, or anyone who knows them or anyone like them.  We are waiting for the next Ghandi.  Stephen Hawking helps us to understand better what Einstein found out.  There may never be anyone again who flows art and science together like DaVinci.  And the debate will go one forever about whether any one hand could have produced the greatness that is Shakespeare.

For the right-wing militias, it's a killer reality.  They cannot accept that they are merely ordinary, that they are just like you and me.  One of the easiest paths to self-importance is to create a cause then revel in opposing it.  Tinge it with bigotry and religious hatred and you become a Knight Templar, a paladin who fights for Truth and God, a Chosen One, a defender of the oppressed, taking arms against a sea of troubles.  You stop being ordinary when you know the beast's secret name.  The Jews and the Muslims are in cahoots with the Mexicans to fuse North America into one country with a transcontinental roadway-railway-pipeline, issuing Ameros, herding gun-less white Christians into Camp Cleveland to be punished under Sharia law while Black gangs run rampant everywhere.  None of it makes any sense, any more than the idea that Western moneyed interests would facilitate the destruction of the World Trade Center risking global upheaval to consolidate their financial and political power.

To some, however, it makes more sense than the inescapable fact that they are nothing more than who they are.  Instead, they have robes, secrets, slogans, and the absolutely essential element of self-importance: Enemies.  It would be sad, really, if the delusion didn't come with an impulse to destroy, as two ordinary cops in Arkansas found out when they were doing their ordinary jobs and their ordinary lives ended in a hail of bullets from one of these ordinary soldiers of the righteous.  They weren't Bat Masterson and Elliot Ness, just two guys with families who loved them.  That was enough importance for their lives, but not for their killer's.  He was special.

 

 

 

Or, "Obamacraft" if one prefers.
Oh, there is some potent African juju afoot.  Our president endears himself momentarily to the oil industry and takes the air out of Republican sails by endorsing more offshore drilling for oil.
Then, mystically, an oil disaster erupts in the Gulf of Mexico, killing and injuring many rig workers and fouling the delicate coastline of what has become a deep red state, Louisiana, and forcing a GOP stooge of a governor to accept, as he certainly will, federal monetary assistance.  Without a peep of objection, President Obama now says "WAIT -- no more offshore until we get to the bottom of this" -- as if by MAGIC.
At this same time, the push is afoot in Congress for reform of Wall Street, with a strong shove from Mr. Obama himself.  "Rein them in, those banking blackguards!" says he.  The loyal opposition complains about tightening credit, making American banks uncompetitive and hurting Main Street USA.  Suddenly, a fraud case appears out of the mist against one of the definitive names of the Street, Goldman Sachs, and the tip-of-the-iceberg information that is disclosed indicates the reprobates, those who, if they were breaking the law are convicted by their own tongues and if they were indeed playing within the law, demonstrate by word and deed for all to see that the law must change -- as if by MAGIC.
And lo, the President and Congress begin to tackle the immigration issue.  On cue, one of the most radicalized legislatures in the country, Arizona's, sends to the governor a bill that she dully and dutifully signs which is so disastrous and vindictive, it has drawn lawsuits from local police and international opprobrium, even barbs from many American conservatives -- as if by MAGIC.
And the Stimulus Package that wouldn't work has now been shown to have helped carry America and the world economy forward from the darkness to a time and place where stock prices rise and jobs are created -- and as we all know, the economic tonic is the strongest MAGIC of them all.
How does this shaman defy the fates?  How does he twist and manipulate events to support his dangerous, radical, treacherous world view and his socialist ambitions?  WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF HIS POWER?
Quite simple, really; he was right all along.

So the "Tea Party" is the militant arm of the GOP, according to that old freedom fighter, Newt Gingrich (good treatment of the irony here http://blog.seattlepi.com/morningeconomist/archives/203132.asp?from=blog_last3).

It's about time!  We need to take matters into our own hands to get the Brits out of Ulster ... or India ... I mean the Jews out of Gaza ... no, I mean the Whites out of power in Capetown ... Peronism out of Buenos Aires?

What a buncha horse hockey.  This isn't going to be my best thought-out post.  It won't say anything that hasn't been said before.  I just need a little ventilation this fine Saturday morning.

That a major figure in a major American political party even utters words like that shows how desperate and dangerous the Right Wing is today.  The contemporary pitchfork-and-torch carrying set consists of nothing but an undulating collective mass of shallow-thinking freaks, idiots, bigots, cultists, exploiters, Neanderthals, knuckleheads, survivalists, secessionists, supremacists, candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize, that's what you get in Cracker Jacks.  Evidently, their answer to losing power through legitimate means (after gaining power through illegitimate means) is to respond through lies, belligerence, death threats, and generally a lot of moronic noise drenched in phony patriotism for a country that no one can find on a map because it doesn't exist.  The greatest disappointment of my adult life is that anyone takes them as anything more than the nuts that they are - and that's saying something, since I saw The Idiot King inaugurated twice. 

They have no ideas.  None.  Zero.  Their only policy (so called) is to loudly and directly oppose anything the federal government or a Democrat wants to do.  They are the nitwit tools of old-line corporate America, whose only policy (so called) is to quietly and indirectly oppose anything the federal government or a Democrat wants to do.  It's a match made in the Eighth Circle of Hell with the GOP serving as marriage broker and extremist radio and cable celebrities providing the Choir of the Damned.

As best as I can determine, these are the ten provisos in the Tea Party Bill of Wrongs:

Making sure every American citizen can see a doctor when they need to is a bad thing.

Making sure Wall Street can't continue to rape American investors is a bad thing.

Making sure every American has a bit of retirement income is a bad thing.

Making sure a census accurately counts every American is a bad thing.

Trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

Trying to produce cheap and clean energy is a bad thing.

Killing Muslims whenever possible is a good thing.

Seceding from the United States is a good thing.

Don't get us started on immigration reform.

Way more God, way less taxes.

There, now.  Do I have the lunacy platform just about right?  Dominated by Christian social conservatives, the amazing thing about these people is that there is nothing social, conservative or remotely Christian about them.  They have unquestioningly embraced the most foolish politicians on the political stage and the most mendacious figures in mass media.  In turn, they have been embrace by the political party that is largely responsible for utterly failed domestic, foreign and moral policies so disastrous, they pushed my country into a hole so deep, we flirted with a bottomless pit.  Conservatives caused the problems in this country, now they oppose all solutions.  Even the occasional conscientious Republican is appalled, and that's going some. 

The cherry on the top is, both the GOP and its newly minted militants are ridiculously proximate to a cache of Americans earnestly trying to pretend the Civil War was about standing up against big government in Washington and wasn't about a bunch of traitors who illegally bolted from the United States so that they could keep their slave-labor economy and the benefits that man's inhumanity to man can convey, if you happen to be on the upside of the org chart.  Trying to equate the righteousness of that maneuver with opposing the oppression of King George, then making the triple loop-de-loop of equating President Obama with that human embodiment of taxation without representation is the kind of logic that makes a spiral the shortest distance between two points.  So if the Revisionist Rebels and the Lipton Luddites end up at the same philosophical point in their political roundabout, does that make them kindred spirits?  Somebody tell me otherwise.  I'll wait.

(Sidebar: While misguided misfits celebrate the Confederacy on this 150th Anniversary of whatever, why don't real Americans celebrate the Surrender at Appomattox as a national holiday?  It happened on April 9th, 1865, so we have five years to ramp up a blow-out sesquicentennial celebration of the defeat of treasonous slaveholders.  Wah-HOO!)

Nothing they believe in works.  This is proven by objective fact and history.  Worse than that, what they believe in is dangerous, not just to others but eventually, to themselves.  I almost wish we could hand them a duplicate Earth and let them run things for a generation, just so long as they don't come begging for help when their planet looks like something between "The Road" and "The Road Warrior."  At the very least, maybe we should have an "opt-out" clause.  Let them do without anything the federal government provides and go completely private.  That means staying off the interstate highways and not using any electricity from Hoover Dam, among other things.  Go ahead.  Make my decade.

The amazing thing is, there's room for a legitimate attack on legitimate American problems like the rampant corporatism that paralyzes our politics at times and tries to keep everyone not of the elite in a quiescent serfdom, having just enough to ask no hard questions and make no hard demands.  One party pretends to do that job.  The other is a foundation block of the problem.  At times, the Tea Partiers sorta kinda almost flirt with some of those very valid ideas. 

Then one of their beloved wants to trade livestock for brain surgery.

I always wondered where the Bond villains got their henchmen.  Who in their right mind would sign up to do their all to help Auric Goldfinger become the richest man on earth or Dr. Julius No the most powerful man thereon?

Now I know.

The Republican effort to rebrand itself as a national party took a major step forward this week as freshman GOP governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia wholeheartedly embraced an entire nation.  The only problem is, he chose to embrace the Confederate States of America.

Personally, I'm grateful that McDonnell had an "oopsie" when he sort of forgot about 400 years of slavery, much of which took place on the soil of the sovereign state he governs, in his proclamation that Virginia would have a month-long celebration of an illegal government.  He was called to apologize for this bizarre omission, which he did immediately and forthrightly, and reminded all of us 21st century Americans that slavery is a bad and evil thing just in case any among us were considering reinstating this institution as a jobs program.  Without the hue and cry that accompanied this gaffe, many of us - me included - would have just passed this off as yet another racist hangover from the ancestors of those who considered Abraham Lincoln and King George III as fellow travelers. 

Instead, we were treated to the talking heads of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who gamely explained that the conflict variously called the Civil War, the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression, depending on your TFI (tolerance for idiocy) score was not about slavery.  Instead, it was about ... wait for it ... "many of the big government issues that are in controversy today."  This only makes sense if we approach the theory of American governance from the perspective of rejecting any strong central government at all.  America did this already and it didn't work.  That's why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the twin Holy Grails of Americana, that replaced the original American confederation.

But the original Constitution itself bobbed and weaved through the notion of slavery (remember the "three-fifths rule") without confronting it, as the Tenth Amendment provided a foundation for "state's rights" while the preceding eight-and-a-half preserved individual rights.  These were the dual rabbit holes that allowed Southern states to deny the protection of the same Bill of Rights that made ratification of the Constitution possible to the slaves who built and drove much of these states' economies.  In particular, the genteel lifestyle of the Antebellum South was threatened as the country at large, through its central government, increasingly pushed back against a practice that was an "abomination" and "evil, vicious and inhumane" according to Gov. McDonnell himself.

So, by logical extension, through issuing a proclamation for the benefit of an unconstitutional government that resisted legal authority with deadly force and was itself based upon an abominable, evil, vicious and inhumane slave-labor economy, McDonnell wants people to remember the "sacrifices" of Confederate soldiers and their leaders in pushing back against, according to their "sons," the tyranny and oppression of Abraham Lincoln, which today finds a parallel in the tyranny of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress reforming the health insurance industry and while he's at it, McDonnell wants to promote Virginia tourism (phew!).  Slavery, health care, slavery, health care ... got to admit, I've always considered a career in slavery ... nah, I'll take health care and maybe a vacation to Colonial Williamsburg.  But it was a close call.

He joins other former governors of Virginia who "proclaimed" a Confederate History Month, apparently with more delicacy, but who were also Republicans, and based on a fleeting glimpse of this site's content today, it seems other Southern govs did it too.  It is inconceivable that a Democrat would issue such a proclamation.  Republicans can no more do what they should do morally, which is get the Hell away from this issue, than they could abandon our uber-failed Cuba policy.  Both mean votes from core supporters.  The Cuban anti-Castro vote is finally ageing out of the electorate.  When will the Stars-and-Bars set take the hint?

The question foremost in my mind is not what McDonnell, hardly a voice for civil libertarianism, really feels, nor why a statistically significant portion of American citizens want to remember the Confederacy as a noble enterprise.  The only question I have is how did Republicans become so abysmally stupid?  Just when their party seemed to be finding traction in doubts, especially among independents, about the young President's handling of the economy and his efforts to expand health care, they continue to make national (and international) news in the worst ways possible.  McDonnell is only this week's example.

The gaffes and errors of Republican National Committee chairman and purported front man of GOP opposition to President Obama, Michael Steele are becoming the stuff of political legend.  A party that built most of its agenda against governmental intervention in private processes, including preferential hiring and advancement based on race, is now coming to grips with the obvious: its own affirmative action program at the highest party level produced a leader with less than zero leadership ability.  The party's avid opposition to the reform of the health care system has driven a wedge between the party's disappearing intellectual wing and its passionate (read: fanatical) wing.  Polls show that 28% of Americans have an affinity for the so-called "Tea Party" which translates into a majority of Republicans grooving on policy idiots Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman appearing on the same stage (talk about a meeting of minds).  Karl Rove had to be trotted out to support the census.  Jim Bunning is opposing shoe laces.  By the way, did Liz Cheney say anything ignorant today? 

As I watch John McCainv.3 wage a fierce primary battle against John McCainv.2, I wonder how many Republicans will step up to the plate and speak against reform of one of the few institutions that polls lower than the Confederacy: America's banking system?  I wonder how many Republicans will oppose the new treaty with Russia that reduces nuclear weapons while preserving the ability of either country to destroy humanity?  And, as the sex scandals continue to roll out for the party of American values, I wonder how anyone lets their kids get near these freakbots?

I can't blame the few enlightened Republicans left who may be asking, "Where have you gone, Dwight D. Eisenhower, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.  Woo woo woo."  The only problem is, the "nation" that the GOP is a courtin' now is gone forever.

Makes me feel good about the long term future of American government.

This question, which is popping up now and is certain to be debated in coming months, is actually misplaced. When the decisions to "invest" tax money to prop up players in the financial sector were being made more than a year ago, there were two extreme viewpoints.  On the one end of the spectrum were "pure" economists and economic libertarians who said "let it all fail" and on the other end were progressives calling for nationalization of the banks.

Neither alternative was feasible. Say we had let it all fail, and waited for pure economic theory to right the ship. Citi would have been the first of thousands more bank failures internationally and certain economic anarchy. That outcome might have been averted if the federal government had instead pumped up spending and social benefits even more than it did, but just getting the stimulus package through was tough enough. Had we pulled the plug on support for the financial sector we would have seen an unprecedented level of misery and chaos pushing us deeper into the abyss. The purists would have been ignoring the huge impact of human behavior on the markets, the same mistake of the brilliant money managers who got us all into the soup. We might or we might not be living under martial law right now, but we sure wouldn't be talking about factory orders trending upward.

On the other hand, we could have tried what many progressives wanted and nationalized the banking system under the Obama administration while we were still on horribly thin economic ice. Investors in the financial institutions would have been wiped out, and not just in Citi but even in banks that didn't get sucked into a federal takeover because of the "fear factor" impact on the entire sector. That means pension funds, IRAs, 401ks, etc.; a whole slew of regular people, not just fat cats, would have hated Obama and the Dems forever.  And without shareholder capital, many banks would still have crumbled and stumbled even with nationalization.  Meanwhile, the nutbars who want to tar and feather the President for making it so they and their kids can see a doctor would have exploded into actual, open violence, not just nasty voice mails and throwing bricks in the dead of night. The ascension of the Democrats would have been reversed for the rest of our lifetimes and we all know how well Republicans handle the nation.

The President had to choose from among the least bad options. We stepped back from the brink of destruction. We lost a lot but not everything. The federal government looks like it might get a little something back, cash-wise, and the grown-up might keep their majorities.

It wasn't just Citibank. It wasn't just AIG. It wasn't just GM. This was a terrifyingly ugly panorama and it is disingenuous in the extreme to argue now that it could have been handled better, whether speaking in broad terms or just about a single company. Remember the Samuel Johnson quote about a dog walking on its hind legs: "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." We had a very unhealthy dog of a financial system thanks to thirty years of "innovation."  It's almost back on all fours again, it has been profoundly humbled and we might at last able to call it to heel. 

Obama made choices based on an astute combination of politics and economics. He got what he could get by consensus and if we don't like how all or any piece of it looks over a year later, just for a moment consider what "President McCain" would have done.

The government will sell its Citi stock for more than the shares were worth when acquired.  GM and Chrysler are still in business and with Ford, the automakers are starting to strengthen.  TARP funds are being repaid and word today from the financial pages is that even AIG, poster child for financial villany, looks to be able to pay back its public infusion given a little more time.  And the whole experience delivered an economic, political and cultural shock that helped bring the right people to Washington and should make us the better for it in other ways for the next sixty years.

Did we, or actually "will we profit on Citigroup" is the wrong question.  If ask it we must, then put me down as a "Hell yes."

This entry is actually a reprint of my comment in response to another comment remarking on the irony that liberals are cheering a bill mandating more customers for private industry.  That's actually a pretty astute observation, but while the dust is still settling, this is my take on the real importance, and one possible future, for health care reform.

The insurance companies were mainly against change and the unknown, but having come, they'll adjust and live with it in whatever form it takes after the regulatory process where they will have considerable impact. The amount of post-signing opposition is dramatically falling off and the champions of "un-reform" are backing down in near record time, seeing the losing proposition written large on the wall.

From a progressive point of view, however, it's still a big win. Insurance has historically been regulated at the state level -- all kinds of insurance -- and now the federal government has at last crossed the Rubicon, sort of like the U.S. fighting that first shooting war in the Middle East. Doing that is what took 80 years.

In the long term, if demographics keep favoring Dems and Repubs keep going to bondage strip clubs, there will be continued federal encroachment on the industry to the point of "virtual" single payer as the feds step in because private insurance has lost its luster and insurers retrench their marketplace offerings. This may happen through an eventual consolidation of Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare and federal employee insurance with a true "public option." Give the Democrats 16 consecutive years in the White House (not certain byb any means, but possible) and you'll see incremental progress in that direction and broad social acceptance of the concept. Now THAT is what the GOP feared, and it's more about keeping their own power intact than anything else.

I'd say in 30 years' time, private health insurance will exist only as an up-market product, differentiated from public health insurance because it will cover a certain amount of elective, cosmetic and highly esoteric treatments like advanced genetic therapy or aging management -- sort of like buying extended warranty coverage.

And for the most part, the "public option" and the "private option" will each work just fine.

There's really not much more to say that hasn't already been said about Health Care Reform and the insane reaction from the extreme right (or the extreme reaction of the insane right), which is all that seems to remain of conservative American politics.  I noted a brief and elegant summary on Yahoo from yesterday of how reform will affect us:

1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

2. You Can't be Dropped

Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

4. You Can Spend What You Need to

Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.

5. You Don't Have to Wait

If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.

6. You Must be Insured

Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

7. You'll Have More Options

Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.

8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible

Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.

9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More

Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.

10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses

Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109178/10-ways-the-new-healthcare-bill-may-affect-you?mod=family-love_money

 

The so-called "fine" isn't even a fine so much as a license not to be covered.  Most likely it will be waived for those who object to insured health care because they reject all modern medicine for religious reasons.  And of the few thousand Tea Partiers who "opt out" of the program, is there any real doubt that they will be treated on an emergency basis and allowed to pay over time if necessary?

Forget for a moment the rhetoric of the past year and more, even stretching back into the campaign of 2008.  Add to the above the idea that this will actually reduce the deficit, and keep in mind the hidden benefit that people with insurance seek treatment earlier, when illness and disease are more easily (and less expensively) treated.  I need someone to tell me how anyone but an anarchy-leaning libertarian would oppose any of this. 

The one legitimate item (as opposed to the goofy complaints) that rankles them the most is likely the individual mandate, but TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch - clearly applies.  Note also that Richard Nixon proposed it in 1974 (http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-giving-nixon-his-due-on-health-care-reform/19414702), GOP senators Robert Bennett (R-UT), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Gordon Smith (R-OR) supported it in 2007 as co-sponsors of Senator Ron Wyden's (D-OR) bill, and Mitt Romney (R-Bizarro World) actually did it in Massachusetts and endorsed it at the federal level (http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=175350&type=newswires) yet he now opposes his own concept.  

The cherry on top is that "70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aLBZwxqgYgwI).

The molten heat of the opposition would be comically irrational if it weren't so dangerous.  I don't think this hate is new.  It's the American Beast that drove some of the worst chapters in our recent history, elevated Nixon to the presidency in 1968 by splitting the Democrats then "silently" fed his power, was harnessed by Reagan as muscle for the rich in 1980, and finally was unchained and lashed into fury by the likes of Rove, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Cheney, and more recently Palin, Beck, Liz Cheney and others for purposes of power, fame and money with undeniably disastrous consequences.  They have convinced the Beast to defend the rich, polluters, torturers, and now insurance companies.  Statistically, we are told, they are predominantly White, Christianist and rural, but they must also be remarkably gullible and willfully ignorant.

Maybe the best part of this is, so many people have now seen it for what it is that it can no longer hide.  It was the meta-story after health care reform that has drawn expressions of disgust and condemnation from all except those who have relied upon it for their source of power, and this has made them look remarkably stupid.  The beast won't ever be tamed and it won't ever go away.  We have seen, however, that the Beast can be confronted without the sky falling, and that's just what we'll have to do.  Looking ahead, there are probably two great policy battles remaining to be fought where the Beast will feed: immigration reform and climate change.  We will see plenty of protests against both, but when we get to immigration reform, we all need to be on "Orange Alert" status, legitimately this time.  

We have met the enemy, and he is (some of) us.

Giving the Republicans the most generous benefit of a doubt, there is some principled opposition they can claim to the idea of mandates to purchase personal health insurance as something a central government should not do.  Maybe a state can get away with it under a 10th Amendment theory, but it doesn't help the GOP's cause that the state that did so was one under a Republican governor.  
That, however, is where principled opposition ends, I believe.  The bill osts a lot but it reduces the deficit.  It shifts around Medicare dollars but expands coverage overall.  There might be longer waits for doctors and more work done by nurses, but more people get care.  I would sincerely be interested in hearing suggestions on any other legitimate criticisms that the GOP could levy against the bill.  That's all I got.  Someone waiting to see a doctor for the first time in ages probably isn't much interested in debating the delegation of powers.
Most of the opposition's complaints are emotional.  Stripped of the false cloak of legitimacy, the real reasons for such virulent and at times violent opposition dwindle down to a precious few, especially in the context of the absurd, bald-faced lies that the opponents have told, and that their followers accepted and acted upon in a most unseemly manner.  It was hysteria, hyperbole, mendacity and just plain pig-headedness at its worst.  But nothing in this world happens without a reason.  What was driving this insanity?
I think the real reasons are as follows: The GOP gave absolutely all it had, and still lost on a big, big issue in a way that makes them look bad.  The new status quo will be as hard to roll back as Social Security in a few years.  People are going to like the program, which means they will like the Democrats who delivered it and the GOP will continue to be marginalized.  And it means God Emperor of Conservatives Ronald Reagan was flat-ass wrong; the conservative revolution for all intents and purposes is officially over and the federal government has reasserted itself, not vis-a-vis states but against corporatism.  The next step, financial reform, is a consolidation of the central government's power position.  That's not a criticism -- the big issues like civil rights, energy and climate and a hundred other lesser reforms must be cross-border, not Balkinized, piece-work approaches.
We may see some years or issues where stalemate prevails, but as demographics continue to change against the Republicans, as young people favor the President overwhelmingly, when immigration reform is enacted as it will be at some point, after redistricting occurs under a Democratic-administered census, and after a hundred other lesser changes, for example, responsive and responsible judicial appointees, active enforcement of rules and regulations that remedy problems, and a federal government that operates with competency and compassion we may well speak of the next generation as the Obama coalition.  
This President will get financial industry reform of some kind, he will integrate the military to eliminate gender bias, he will reconstruct No Child Left Behind so that it is no longer "No Public School Left Standing," he will reform immigration policies and he will make progress on protecting the environment.  He may not go as far as many progressives want, but the retreat of common sense and federal effective government has ended.  
Mark you well this day, when Wellington stopped and broke Napoleon's ranks.
All who frequent this site on a friendly basis naturally hope and pray for the young President's continued success, health, safety and a second term.  If may indulge myself and look ahead to 2016 and beyond, into the future of this particular public figure, we are seeing the maturation of the First Great Statesman of the 21st Century, a true "World Leader" in a way that would even have eluded the last U.S. President with such profound leadership qualities, John F. Kennedy.  He does not have the personal flaws of Clinton, or the albatross of a presidency that still dogs Carter.  He will be an American First but also the First Citizen of the Planet, beholden to no electorate.
This is a long ways away, and to bring it about, the Democrats and their Progressive supporters should read and heed the following:

In one final attempt to deal with Wellington, Bonaparte threw his undefeated veterans at the recalcitrant thin red line, which buckled under the strain.

The moment of victory was at hand when upon Wellington's command, 1500 Guardsmen stood immediately in front of their French counterparts and stopped the advance with a withering point-blank series of volleys.

The Chasseurs of the Guard finally reeled away in disorder and the sight of their retreat sent panic through Bonaparte's ranks.

The disintegration of a once-proud army into a mass of panicking men took place almost within a blink of an eye and Bonaparte's dreams, and reputation, lay shattered.

The British and Prussian pursuit after Waterloo was relentless and prevented any chance of French consolidation.

Waterloo end of Bonaparte's hold on power had been a costly one. Wellington lost 17,000 men, Blucher 7000, and Bonaparte 32,000, with at least another 7000 captured.

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_waterloo3.htm

Relentless pursuit; prevent any chance of consolidation; victory can be costly, but there are victories that are worth the cost.

Amazingly, Ben Nelson is not the only Senator, even in 2009, to try to cleave a local benefit out of a senatorial process.  As we know, Republicans continue to proclaim shock and dismay and threaten litigation over the Democratic Senator from Nebraska trading his vote for health insurance reform for including a Medicaid reimbursement provision uniquely favorable to his home state.  The local interests of one of his GOP neighbors, however, are having an even larger, ongoing impact on federal operations, and were in play much longer ago.

 

While looking up other information, I accidentally came across an article describing how Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri has one of those aggravating "holds" on an Obama nominee.  The quid pro quo for releasing the hold on the nomination is apparently securing a General Services Administration commitment to get a federal office building constructed in Kansas City.  To be fair, Bond's Democratic counterpart, Claire McCaskill, is also pushing hard for this project, as would be expected.  Sen. McCaskill, however, has evidently confined her efforts to politicking and stopped far short of something approaching political extortion.

 

According to a December 29, 2009 story in The Pitch - a self-proclaimed "Kansas City News Blog" -Senator Bond of the "show-me (da money)" state has a hold on the April 2009 nomination of Martha Johnson as head of the GSA; read all about it here: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/12/downtown_kansas_city_missouri.php.  Who knows, maybe Bond's provincialism was Nelson's inspiration.

 

GSA, of course, was made famous in these virtual pages for being politicized to the nth degree by the Bush Administration.  Given the size of the federal budget, GSA is a monumentally large purchasing and property management organization, so allowing it to go leaderless for nine months seems less than prudent.  Though I don't know anything about Ms. Johnson, I'd like to believe she is a person of high character who can clean up any lingering messes at GSA, in much the same way as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar finally wound up a decades-old dispute between DOI and several Native Governments.

 

From the looks of things, GSA is proceeding with the project yet Bond's hold strangely, remains in place.  I don't begrudge Sen. Bond exercising his clout for his constituents; that, after all, is part of the process.  What bothers me is, for all their chest thumping, moral indignation and decrying the "Chicago-style" politics of health care reform, how do the Republicans rationalize this one?  Enquiring minds want to know.

In a game that will be talked about for years, President Barack Obama pitched and hit his way to a 3-0 victory in a winner-take-all match-up against a squad of all-stars selected from the eight 2009 American and National leagues' playoff teams.  The President was allowed only one other player in the field, and he selected Detroit Tigers' catcher Gerald Laird as a battery mate (the Tigers missed their division's title, losing a one-game playoff to the Minnesota Twins.).

 

As the only batter in his team's lineup, Obama was forced to try to hit a home run in every at bat and swing at almost every pitch to avoid being stranded on base.  His hitting performance reflected this, with Obama getting only four hits in 31 at-bats, with no walks.  His hits consisted of three homers and a double when he was thrown out sliding into third.  "He didn't get a lot of hits but he made them count," said opposing squad manager, New York Yankees skipper Joe Girardi. 

 

On the mound, Obama threw 142 pitches over nine shutout innings, scattering six hits and two walks with one wild pitch.  Obama's shutout was in jeopardy when, up 3-0 in the bottom of the ninth, Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals hit a shot into the left field corner.  Retrieving the ball quickly, Obama chased Pujols down the third-base line, tagging him moments before he crossed the plate.  Asked if he felt Obama should have thrown him the ball for the tag, catcher Laird demurred, saying, "Pujols could have started a big rally, and in that situation you want your best player making the play."

 

As this year's World Series winner, Obama will next visit the White House where he will meet himself.  Asked if he will say anything to himself about national and world affairs, Obama said he didn't want to turn the event into "some kind of political spectacle - let's keep this about baseball."

As I type this sentence, a little red line appears under Obama.  Go ahead, try it in a comment.  Obama.  Obama.  President Barack Obama.  Hey, it's under Barack too!  Barack.  Barack.

Barack Obama.

Those are the only two words in this message that are indicated as misspellings.  Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama.  "Nobel" is OK.

I can understand proper names being "misspellings" like Biden, Clinton, WHOA!  No red line under "Clinton."  Hillary.  See, that's OK, too.  Reagan.  NOW THAT'S JUST WRONG!

OK, I've had enough fun.  Please update the TPM dictionary.

I have been reluctant to post these ideas though I have harbored them for some time.  Recent events have only confirmed their continued applicability, however, and a post yesterday on Truthout.com by Eric Boehlert, "A President Was Killed the Last Time Right-Wing Hatred Ran Wild Like This," prompted me to respond to Boehlert with the below thoughts, and to submit them for the consideration of this community.

Basically, I thanked Boehlert "for catching up."  The rest of my statement follows:

"I've watched people I thought I knew well, including Republicans of seemingly high intellect, buy into the radical insanity, fearing -- and this is a direct quote - 'the end of representative democracy under Obama.'  Making sweeping generalizations goes against everything I believe in, but the sheer amount and intensity of irrational behavior leads me to conclude there is a pathological level of paranoia among the right wing and a huge amount of racism and 'christianized' extremism.  This is a Deep South, Great Plains, High Rockies movement -- regions that are historically the least open, the least tolerant, and the most xenophobic in the country.  Make no mistake: This country's 'Civil War' started with the '3/5ths Rule' in the Constitution, became a shooting war in the 1860s (when the radical Right claimed another President), a covert war until the Civil Rights Act, and has continued today under the guise of neo-conservativism, for whose adherents Muslims, the Taliban, and Iranian 'insurgents' provided a useful proxy for unification through violence.  The deep red converts are scary and dangerous, and they are seducers of many people we all know and, in some cases, even love."

Whether witch doctor, Stalin, Hitler, secret Muslim, or any other ludicrous comparison the Right wants to launch, the opposition to President Obama has completely lost its moorings from any reasoned political or social theory.  Radical federalists, neo-imperialists, or simply the super-rich hoping to avoid a fair tax share are all among those who freely exploit the paranoid as muscle against social progress.  The health care "debate" only confirmed for me the lunacy of the "other side" and demonstrated the willingness of empowered interests, this time in the form of the insurance lobby, to leverage blind hatred for narrow, parochial purposes. 

What I once wanted to tell a former friend whom I have lost in the course of this debate, a Republican I once held in some esteem, is that the intensity of the opposition that he emphasized on our past discussions does not equate to validity.  It is my experience that the most intense "believers" in any line of thinking operate detached from all facts and rely exclusively on faith in a special, shared truth that unites them and their fellow believers no matter how destructive that belief may be to the common welfare.  It's not the product of rational thought, it is the behavior of a cult and it defies logical discourse.  This was most evident previously in the Evangelism that propelled Republicans to power in the 90s until recently despite the fact that the Republicans so ensconced demonstrated a level of avarice, mendacity and immorality more befitting decadent Rome than seats of American government.  Now, we see this cultism in a Fox-fueled radical right that would, indeed, cheer at the death of a President they hate unreasoningly even though his policies (continuing some of the policies of his Republican predecessor) saved the world from a devastating Second Great Depression and certain economic anarchy.  Go figure.

I was hopeful that policy successes under President Obama, the best leader for our times, would cement a pragmatic government under Progressives for the remainder of my life (who, after all would turn down affordable health care?!).  That outcome is now at great risk.  Progressives are going to have to mobilize and defend their recent gains until the radicals are finally forced into permanent minority status and a more rational opposition emerges.  Do they have the will when there is no grand, unifying crisis at hand, only a low-level counter-revolution driven by hate, shaped by lies and energized by unthinking fear?  Time will tell whether we will participate in the next great victory over the forces of repression in America, or suffer yet another reversal that further delays our emergence as a truly rational society. 

God Bless the United States of America.

 

Go right to the top: Republican leadership.  This will require Democrats in Congress to do what Democratic voters are mobilizing to handle in their stead at the town halls on health care.

Get tough.

Democratic leadership in the House and Senate must lay down the law to Republicans to control their lackeys.  Either they get their followers to engage in a civil debate, or EVERY PROCEDURAL RULE, GIMMICK, TRICK AND MANEUVER will be used to shut the GOP out of absolutely everything in Congress, not just health care, but everything.  The deadliest way to fight back is often by the rules, and our side has the rule book.

This isn't trying to ram through a (Big D) Democratic agenda, it's trying to preserve the (little d) democratic process.  These idiots are not the second coming of Ghandi.  We all know this has everything to do with defeating the President and the Democrats and nothing to do with policy differences.  Polite won't cut it, it's what they count on.  Obnoxious is their bread-and-butter, page one of the playbook.

We ought to be twice as motivated as the chowderheads: We can get reform AND deal their team a crushing defeat.  Waterloo can cut both ways.  The GOP has been on the wrong side of Dunkirk the Little Big Horn and the Battle of the Bulge so far, but why stop?

Don't let them off the ropes, don't let them away from the wall, don't let them back in the game, use every sport metaphor you can find.  When they get violent, as they unfortunately will, we will know that we have won.

And on that strategy memo, it's too complicated.  A simple chant of "Let him speak" or "Let her speak" is easy, effective and democratic.

 

Forget ideology.  Forget vision.  Forget patriotism.  Forget pragmatism.  For the elected Republican officials in Washington, now more than ever before, everything is about votes.  There are only two sides to that coin: Keeping the votes of the diminishing Republican faithful and denying even more votes for Democrats driven by policy successes.

 

Certainly, some in the GOP are principled men and women, but these officials likely qualify as an endangered species.  This is a party that is in serious trouble.  A few with at least a modicum of courage recognize this is true.  Sen. George Voinovich spells the Republican problem out in five letters: S O U T H.  Sen. Mitch McConnell spoke memorably, and somewhat disconsolately this year in terms of the GOP as a "regional" party.  Some of slightly higher principles do what they believe is right regardless of the party line, like Sen. Richard Lugar and his attitudes toward lifting the Cuban embargo.  A very few, most notably former Rep. Tom Davis, just got fed up and quit.  Sen. Arlen Specter simply jumped ship.

 

For the Republicans who are left, electoral politics has become a zero-sum game.  The most reliable Republican voters are a base of, well, knuckleheads.  These are the 28% nationally who are certain Pres. Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and the 71% within the party who view the imbecilic ice queen Sarah Palin with favor.  For a Republican to stay in office, it has become essential to pander to voters who can't keep a rational thought in their head.  It has also become necessary to obstruct everything Democrats attempt at a national level, not on principle so much as to deny the Democrats any further gains.

 

Interestingly, the Democratic agenda makes it possible to both pander to the hardcore base and blockade social progress at the same time.  House GOP unanimity against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and near GOP unanimity in the Senate was an absurd joke.  Anyone with common sense knew that without massive government action, this country, and the world at large, was headed to a devastating depression.  In the short term, however, it was easier to appear to be fiscally responsible to the local yokels and save the problem of explaining away the success of the policy for another day, which now seems to be approaching.

 

On unionization, large swaths of American business pumped lobbying dollars into the anti-check card campaign, but even without that impetus, Republicans in office know that the more unionization in this country, the more reliably Democratic votes will result.  This is why Pseudo President Bush would not let Transportation Security Administration employees unionize - there is no more reliably Democratic voting base than unionized government employees.

 

Everyone in the Beltway with half a brain knows how badly our health care system is in need of reform.  Even the GOP admitted this in today's radio address.  But the whole idea of "getting government bureaucrats between you and your doctor" is a blatant canard, especially to someone like me who has dealt with HMO coverage for years.  If 40+ million Americans wake up one day able to go to a doctor when they are sick, who is going to take credit for this miracle on the campaign trail?  Eric Cantor??

 

The big one coming down the pike is immigration reform.  With guys like Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner leading the reverse suicide charge awhile back, the GOP ceded the Latino vote to the Democrats for the next 30 years at least.  Playing to the xenophobic nationalism of the radical right is simultaneously the perfect cover for trying to prevent several million more voters from swelling this demographic already decidedly in favor of Democrats.

 

But the trends are clear.  Unions will gain power, if nothing else, through proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations to permit organizing without employers' improper interference.  Any pro-unionization reform beyond that is gravy.  There will be health care reform of some kind.  Immigration reform in 2010 is also a near certainty.  There will be plenty of protestations, obstacles, and half-a-loaf approaches to these and other issues, many raised by Blue Dog Democrats (the ultimate in "cross-over vehicles" for 2009) but for Democrats who supported the stimulus package, things are already starting to pan out.

 

Eventually, supporting these and other game-changing reforms, like greater consumer protections in the financial services market, will be seen as a solid political strategy (there is really no reason for the over-abundance of caution in these areas, but that's life).  Meanwhile, demographics will continue to work against Republicans, who insist on being too White, too old, too rural and too Southern to matter much on the national stage.  Though he "gimmicked-up" his denial of the Commerce Secretary appointment based on Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the process, Sen. Judd Gregg saw the writing on the wall in the 2010 Census.  Next year's census will be highly inclusive, then followed up by Congressional redistricting which will be driven in largest part by Democrats or non-partisan methods - both anathemas to "the permanent Republican majority" in which prior redistricting played a huge role.  Small wonder he didn't want to preside over that large of a GOP coffin nail.

 

The icing on the cake for Democrats is that the GOP base and many of those they have voted into office are remarkably flawed humans.  This, however, should come as no surprise in hindsight.  We're talking about people who are among the most sexually repressed, violence indulging, religiously narrow and socially dysfunctional humans we could ever hope not to share a plane ride with - hypocrisy and psychological conflict rule their day.  This is the only way to explain the relentless wave of scandals tagged with names like Vitter, Foley, Craig, Sanford, Ensign, DeLay and so many others.  They are all birds of a feather.  If they weren't so dangerous, I could pity them.

 

At this point for elected Republicans, politics is a rear-guard action aimed at keeping their jobs.  There is no agenda to advance.  Republicans have no practical alternative other than to suck up (down?) to the lowest of the low, throw roadblocks in front of every useful idea, or both.  It's the only way I know of to understand how a political party can be "pro-life" and "pro-torture" simultaneously, though I'm open for other suggestions. 

 

There will be plenty of places in the country (nowhere I want to live) that will perpetually return legislators like Senators DeMint, Sessions and Inhofe to office, but not enough to dominate this country's governance.  While some Republican office holders truly share the beliefs of their radicalized constituents, the cynic in me says that the recent, nearly inexplicable anti-everything Republican gymnastics and ineptitude are actually easy to understand, if we tilt the picture in the right way.

 

Like so many things in modern society, it all comes down to the numbers.