Rip dat mainframe I’ll explain, the whole GOP is going insane
By Thoreau
Like Radley says, between the talk about birth certificates, the “Ground Zero Mosque”, idiots talking about changing the 14th amendment, the Colorado gubernatorial candidate concerned that biking is part of a UN conspiracy, the GOP has lost its mind. Even worse, at least some of this is coming from people supported by the Tea Party.
Recall that the Tea Party is allegedly a reaction to big spending by the GOP during 2001-2008 (a reaction that conveniently started in 2009, but let’s leave that aside for now). God knows they need an internal battle and some purging of the worst elements. Grown-ups were precious few in 2001-2008. If the Tea Party could purge some of the drunken sailors of 2001-2008 and get the party to engage in some soul-searching, I would cheer for them and their process, even if I didn’t agree with them on issues. We need a sane and responsible opposition party, and some purification and contemplation could be part of the process that gets us such a party. Alas, the Tea Partiers seem to like some of the crazy candidates, and to the extent that any faction of the GOP (old guard or Tea Party) says anything about policy their stance seems to be that the budget must be balanced, but military spending must go up and taxes must go down. And based on how they governed in 2001-2008, it’s not clear that they would actually cut anything else in the budget by much either. One needn’t subscribe to any particular political philosophy to recognize the basic ARITHMETIC FAIL in that stance.
So, the GOP is currently in a battle between outright crazies and a bunch of irresponsible fools. Let us hope that candidates from both camps do poorly in fall. Outright, across-the-board failure by either faction seems unlikely, given that the governing party always does poorly when the economy is doing poorly. However, if they can under-perform expectations, well, that will at least be something.
Comment by Glaivester —
August 15, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Recall that the Tea Party is allegedly a reaction to big spending by the GOP during 2001-2008 (a reaction that conveniently started in 2009, but let’s leave that aside for now).
The Tea Party is essentially the GOP trying to co-opt the Ron Paul movement. I think this blogpost at Lew Rockwell is a reasonable look at how much of the rhetoric, if not all of the policies, of the Tea Party came from Ron Paul’s 2007-2008 presidential run.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
August 15, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
The Tea Party is largely a genuine popular movement, with all the inchoate heat that implies. However it will soon be co-opted, if it hasn’t been already, by sharp career politicians, who will climb to power on their shoulders and then abandon them. “Talk conservative, vote liberal” is perennially winning political tactic, and its cheat never grows stale.
And so long as the federal budget is created with a “last year plus X percent” formula, the debt will never come down.
Comment by bill —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:11 am
These crazy people will soon hold the balance of power in running your lovely country.
Interesting times indeed.
Comment by Pandora Bracelet —
August 16, 2010 @ 4:13 am
It is too crazy!!!
Comment by Melvin —
August 16, 2010 @ 5:18 am
I can only say I am glad I do not live in the US. Your country is way too crazy with all these republicans and tea party fanatics. Very soon at this rate , you will become nothing but a third rate country with a population of poor white trash.
Comment by Walt —
August 16, 2010 @ 7:43 am
And a lot of guns, my friend.
Comment by Chuck —
August 16, 2010 @ 7:54 am
Just remember the brown shirts and the Night of the Long Knives. When they no longer need them, they will wipe them out and throw them away. What Fools they are.
Comment by hackenbush —
August 16, 2010 @ 9:35 am
The thing I’m having trouble figuring out is how the only “successful” populist movement to come out of thirty years of destroying the middle class, upward motion of wealth, shipping jobs overseas in the name of globalization and the deification of the banking industry is the *Tea Party*. It seems to be mostly made up of:
1) Rich people.
2) People who *wish* they were rich, and assume that if the gub’mint wasn’t taking all of their money, they’d *be* rich.
3) People too stupid to understand that they’re going against their better interests.
Let’s face a few important facts about tea partiers:
1) The “movement” was timed to be a reaction to a fairly populist president. The GOP’s brand was dog food, and they needed some fresh faces.
2) They’re protesting against high taxes during periods of historically low taxation. I mean, if we were at FDR levels of “rich people” taxation (90+%), I could see people getting up in arms. Well, if they were rich…
3) A country founded on immigration and naturalization can’t suddenly become xenophobic. It makes no sense. If you make legal immigration too difficult, people will find other ways of coming here. Well, so long as people are hiring them and as long as we haven’t turned this place into a banana republic…
4) Racist bullshit against a president, no matter how dog-whistle it may be, is still racist bullshit. The guy isn’t a socialist. Hell, he’s barely a democrat in most aspects. I’d go with “corporatist”. But the last two Bushes, a Clinton and a Reagan were all pulling for big-business over everyone else, so I don’t think now is the proper time to pull out the “corporatist” outrage, either.
5) For a party supposedly against government handouts, they’re surprisingly quiet when it comes to both the middle class tax cuts (an ineffective form of stimulus to be sure, but still something the TP’ers should be cheering) and the giant corporate subsidies endorsed by the current administration. It’s not going a really long way towards proving your legitimacy when you only protest something when Democrats do it. Where were you guys when Bush was wrecking the place? Or Reagan, with his deficit ballooning and destruction of the middle class?
No one is going to take you guys seriously if you’re not at least *consistent*.
Comment by Zach —
August 16, 2010 @ 9:59 am
Someone somewhere define insanity as performing the same action repeatedly and expecting different results. Against that measure, the GOP is certainly not insane. What looks like insanity to most of us is actually a carefully devised tactic to divert attention away from issues on which they do not want voters thinking rationally about.
The one topic that is currently affecting people the most is the economy – jobs, cost of living, taxes, Social Security. If people outside of the wealthiest 5% of the population study the GOP position on these issues, there is little or no chance that they will vote GOP. The solution? Start screaming about gay marriage, immigrants taking “our” jobs, the right to carry machine guns in public schools, or any other whacko-sounding thing you can imagine, as long as it diverts people from contemplating what you are going to do to them financially.
You know what? It works. It’s the GOP’s most successful tactic. It may actually be the only one they’ve got left.
In my opinion, the best way to fight it is to simply ignore it. Instead of trying to respond to all the BS and score tit-for-tat points on every issue, instead bring up the economy. Bring up the fact that they want to gut Medicare and Social Security, and further cut taxes for billionaires. They don’t care if they’re hypocritical or misleading or rational on all the other issues – their one and only goal is to make noise to distract. So no matter what subject they choose to discuss, come back at them with the economy.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I don’t see any better way of fighting them. If voters get mad, they will vote with their emotions. So we have to make them mad about the economy. The difference is that at least we will have the truth on our side.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Not quite. The Tea Party is essentially the GOP trying to rebrand itself by stealing Ron Paul’s brand. The actual movement, in terms of voters and organizers, is irrelevant to them. They have their own pre-packaged movement.
No, it’s not. It was an astroturf project of Dick Armey’s lobbying shop and the Koch brothers’ lobbying shop from the beginning. This has been well-documented for over a year now.
Anyway, between their demands for a border crackdown and their opposition to mosques, I guess we can put to bed the line about the Tea Party activists being motivated by the size of the deficit and a love for small government.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 10:15 am
This country is so ready to fall in love with moderate Republicans.
Too bad for them they kept losing their primaries to tea baggers.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 11:01 am
The Tea Party is now organizing to oppose Net Neutrality.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/tea-partiers-say-net-neutrality-hurts-freedom.php?ref=fpa
Wow, that totally grassroots, non-astroturf populist movement must be really concerned about the deficit!
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 16, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Coming at things from a slightly different direction…
Quite a few lefties in recent years have expressed a wish for the grown-ups to retake control of the GOP — a healthy democracy needs (at least two) sane, rational parties, and so on. I always dismissed this way of thinking: let ‘em crash and burn, I said. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Forty years in the desert, and then we’ll talk.
I’m starting to rethink that. It’s not, of course, that I think the Dems need a countervailing force to “rein them in” — as hackenbush points out upthread, there’s precious little that needs reining in (especially for a party that’s supposedly dedicated to imposing Gay Maoist Sharia).
Rather, I’ve come to the conclusion that on those issues where I find common ground with people like Jim and Thoreau — torture, surveillance, and civil liberties; war, empire and the military-industrial complex; the mass incarceration state and the “war on drugs”; etc. — there is simply zero chance of substantive change coming from Democrats. With a few notable exceptions, the defensive crouch of the Democrats on these issues has become reflexive and absolute. I mean, Obama snickered at the very notion that he might consider pushing for reform of marijuana laws.
So I’m starting to think that if’s there going to be any real change on these matters, it’s going to come in a Nixon-to-China stylee, from some (as yet purely theoretical) Republicans who actually take the “limited government” rhetoric seriously when it comes to…actual limited government. And that can only happen if the GOP regains control of its senses.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 16, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Uncle Kvetch,
Related to what you’re saying, I’d bring up 2 other things:
1) The “Only Nixon can go to China” thing came partly from the fact that Nixon (and those like him) played the Red card so effectively that ultimately nobody else could go to China. Had Nixon and others not done that, perhaps there would have been room for others to go to China.
Likewise, if there were a sane GOP, perhaps it would be safer for Democrats to do certain things. Sure, there will always be certain things that a black Democrat with the middle name Hussein cannot do, but those limits can be expanded or contracted depending on how the right plays the kulturkampf.
2) But the right and the kulturkampf foreclosing options aren’t the only reasons that Democrats don’t go to China. Some of them don’t want to, and the crazier the GOP is, the easier it is to hold liberals hostage. I’m not saying that progressives would or should vote en masse for a moderate Republican, but the crazier the GOP is the more weight the “Whaddayagonnado, vote Republican?” tactic carries. Make the prospects of a Republican victory less scary, and the “moderate” Democrats have a bit less leverage when negotiating with their left flank.
So, if the GOP tones it down, genuinely moderate Democrats will have more room to act, and progressives will have more credibility when they threaten to punish “moderate” Democrats who act like Republicans.
Then again, I suspect that some GOP strategists know this.
Comment by dhex —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
only a gay sharia maoist can build a mosque at ground zero!
Comment by Batocchio —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Some of the tea party rank and file may represent some genuine if extremely confused populism (the plutocrat-friendly kind). But the various tea parties started as astroturf organizations, funded by corporations and right-wing foundations, and heavily promoted at Fox News. None of those dynamics have changed. Polls have shown that tea partiers are mostly conservative Republicans, just with some re-branding. “We need a sane and responsible opposition party,” sure, but the tea party isn’t it, not while the membership and leadership are pushing for the same disastrous Bush policies and plutocracy, along with some crazy, paranoid stuff from the far right.
Comment by b-psycho —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Exactly.
If “tea party” folks wonder why the reaction to them on the Left is as a huge quivering ball of white resentment, this is why. It is because the other explanations are immediately contradicted.
Comment by dhex —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
If “tea party” folks wonder why the reaction to them on the Left is as a huge quivering ball of white resentment, this is why. It is because the other explanations are immediately contradicted.
i think you flatter “the left” a bit much. these clownshoes could be tea drinking chess players who rock mozart in their spare time* and raaaaaaaaacist and variations thereupon would still be the name of the game. it’s not like “the left” really cares about whether small gubmint conservatives are actually into small gubmint.**
shorter version: remember when these guys were going to assassinate obama and bring about race war? yeeaaaaaah.
* as opposed to a gang of confused populist monkeys, that is.
** they generally aren’t anyway.
Comment by TomPaine —
August 16, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
As a former drunken sailor, I dispute the false charge that we ever spent money like the Republicans!
Comment by Thoreau —
August 16, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
This post on the progressive accomplishments of Nixon (whose public policy and personal politics were often very different) is an interesting read:
http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/the-greatest-liberal-reformer-since-fdr/
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Gay Maoist Sharia
Hiiiiii-yah!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
On some of these, like torture, war, the military-industrial complex, and empire, I think the Democrats are demonstrably better and, what’s more, further progress is definitely possible for the Democratic Party.
On your other issues, I’ve given up on progress coming from national politics at all, and can only see it coming through local activism that bubbles up. That’s how decriminalization laws have passed in the states where they have.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
You don’t see the parallels?
Look over there, THE REAL RACISTS! Who are black, and want payback.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 16, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
On some of these, like torture, war, the military-industrial complex, and empire, I think the Democrats are demonstrably better and, what’s more, further progress is definitely possible for the Democratic Party.
Please don’t move the goalposts, Joe. I very specifically did not say “demonstrably better (than the Republicans),” because that’s obvious. The Democrats are demonstrably less likely to throw some crappy little country against the wall just to show that they mean business. They’re demonstrably less likely to openly advocate and celebrate torture.*
Um, yay?
“Better than the Republicans” is an exceedingly low hurdle to jump at this point.
As for “further progress” — I see nothing on the radar. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
Show me.
*But if somebody else is willing to get their hands dirty, they’ll still use the evidence.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 16, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Who’s “you guys”?
Sanity Inspector may be a teabagger, but the other commentors and the posters on this blog sure aren’t.
Lemme guess, walk-in copy-and-paste strikes again?
Comment by MFA —
August 16, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
“Alas, the Tea Partiers seem to like some of the crazy candidates…”
Dude. The Tea Party is THE reason the crazy candidates are running. Check out practically any polling on TP beliefs. Candidates bring the crazy specifically to court them. Sheesh.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
I think the Iraq withdrawal is a pretty big deal.
I think the fact that Obama isn’t starting any wars is a big deal. Who was the last president that didn’t start a war? Carter? I don’t understand how you can dismiss this as “Um, yay?” Isn’t not starting wars the point of anti-imperialism?
If you look at Obama’s military budgets, you’ll see that, while he’s kept them nominally at the same level as Bush, he’s done so by bringing large amounts of what was off-budget spending into the defense bill, setting the stage for a big peace dividend ones the wars end.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
I hear what you’re saying, and no, you are not going to get isolationist anti-interventionism from the Democrats, or from anyone in D.C.
I made the point about “Better than the Republicans” because YOU raised the issue of the Democrats not being worth supporting, and hoping for a friendly Republican faction. I argue that the Democrats are meaningfully better than the Republicans on this, to the point where even someone like you has an interest in seeing them in power, even if they aren’t what you want.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 16, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
joe,
The “Better than Republicans” issue has several dimensions:
1) Which party has more individual elected officials who are on the side of the angels?
The Democrats win this one.
2) When in power, will the party actively make things worse?
Clearly, on this score, the Republicans are worse.
3) When in power, will the party, for one reason or another, fail to do much to make things better?
This describes the Democrats in far too many instances. Maybe because too many of them are secretly evil, maybe because they aren’t Nixon and can’t go to China, maybe because they are simply not a very well-oiled machine.
4) When in power, does the party have the freedom of action, if not always the intent, to actually make something better?
The Democrats can do some good things, but it seems that Republicans, being able to go to China and also just being more aggressive overall, are able to get more of whatever they set out to get.
5) When in opposition, will they be effective?
This one answers itself.
Voting for a Democrat is, sadly, a predictable bet: Probably somewhat better, sometimes worse, rarely a lot better. Voting for a Republican is a riskier bet: Often worse, rarely better, but if they actually wanted to they could do something way, way better and probably get away with it. And it seems to be a combo of their better organization and ability to wield power, and the fact that kulturkampf rules so many things so Republicans can do whatever they want (for good or for ill) and portray it as the strong and pro-American thing to do.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 16, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
My current hypothesis is that a band of genuinely sane and responsible Republicans could, if they existed in sufficient numbers, team up with Democrats and actually deliver things that progressives as well as some libertarians (e.g. UO bloggers) would heartily endorse. I also hypothesize that the Right is well aware of this, and hence prefers crazies and reckless spenders.
Comment by lunchstealer —
August 17, 2010 @ 2:02 am
A country founded on immigration and naturalization can’t suddenly become xenophobic. It makes no sense.
Of course, you’re right. It makes no sense to suddenly become xenophobic. Which probably means that isn’t what happened. The nation hasn’t become xenophobic. It’s been xenophobic for years. Just look up 19th century attitudes towards the Irish, or 20th century attitudes towards the Italians.
We’ve been xenophobic since we first got an ‘us’ to define a ‘them’ against.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 17, 2010 @ 5:54 am
I think the fact that Obama isn’t starting any wars is a big deal.
Yes, Joe…it is an indisputably good thing that Barack Obama hasn’t started any new wars in the whole 17 months that he’s been in office.
Isn’t not starting wars the point of anti-imperialism?
In and of itself? No. “Not starting wars” is a necessary condition for an “anti-imperialist” foreign policy, but not a sufficient one. That’s kind of what I’m trying to get at here, and I see I’m not succeeding.
you are not going to get isolationist anti-interventionism from the Democrats, or from anyone in D.C.
See, that’s what I mean. I maintain that there’s a difference between “isolationism” and “questioning the wisdom of having US military bases in more than 150 countries around the world.” You apparently disagree. Like the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats, you accept our status as the world’s self-appointed policeman as a given, to the point that to even question it is to relegate oneself to the very fringes of acceptable discourse. Which is my point. Again.
I made the point about “Better than the Republicans” because YOU raised the issue of the Democrats not being worth supporting, and hoping for a friendly Republican faction. I argue that the Democrats are meaningfully better than the Republicans on this, to the point where even someone like you has an interest in seeing them in power, even if they aren’t what you want.
OK, I may have been unclear on this. I wasn’t saying “I hope some sane, moderate Republicans come on the scene so I can vote for them.” My point was that said Republicans could shift the discourse, or “move the Overton Window” if you prefer, in ways alluded to by Thoreau in #14 and #29 and #30. I probably still wouldn’t vote for them. But I think the presence of those voices would be salutary.
Of course, we have people saying the “right” things already with regard to things like imperialism and drug policy. They’re the “professional left” of the Democratic Party, and the White House has made it amply clear that they need to STFU.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 17, 2010 @ 9:53 am
I’ll ask you again, can you name the last president who didn’t start any wars? Hello?
Meh, what’s a few wars, anyway?
Please, lecture me some more from your horse so high that you’ve above the concerns of us puny hu-mans.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 17, 2010 @ 9:55 am
…blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Sure, you completely and utterly whiffed on actually answering a rather substantive point, but boy, you sure told me about what words I’m allowed to use, and then drew a nice, great, big, ugly conclusion you could hurl at me. Did it make you feel better than me? I’d hate to see a hissy fit completely wasted.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 17, 2010 @ 10:01 am
Christ on a stick, joe.
I’m sorry I bothered.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 17, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Not starting a war (yet) is certainly great as long as we’re grading on a curve. Escalating at least one of the wars he’s currently fighting (definitely in Afghanistan, hard to say what’s happening in Yemen) earns a solid “Heckuva job” and Medal of Freedom.
As far as preventing future wars (something that I’d think we’d want to see from a Nobel Peace Prize winner), some sort of re-evaluation of America’s foreign policy commitments and priorities would be a good thing going forward. That’s what Uncle Kvetch is asking for, some changing more fundamental than reliance on the good will of the guy currently in office.