No Future for the GOP?
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
hope / springs / eternal
Now for something completely fresh ...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/palin-and-mccain-together-again/?partner=rss&emc=rss
'how's that Alaskan Barbie thing working out for ya ?"
is that a smile Sarah ?
Now for something completely fresh ...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/palin-and-mccain-together-again/?partner=rss&emc=rss
'how's that Alaskan Barbie thing working out for ya ?"
is that a smile Sarah ?
craner
Beast of Burden
A robust, if late in the day, defense of Neoconservative foriegn policy ideas by my man Michael Rubin.
crackerjack
Well-known member
defence, Craner - you're reading too many of these right-wing Yanks
craner
Beast of Burden
Frum seems quite rightly disgusted with the GOP right now; I can't believe that leaving AEI is unrelated.
This Tea Party nonsense is an ideological and aesthetic disaster, augmented by weird Palinism. (Although, of course, you can't really equate Tea Party activism with Republicanism, as such. But the tone and tenor of Republican organs, NRO for example, has gone sharply downhill under their influence.)
This Tea Party nonsense is an ideological and aesthetic disaster, augmented by weird Palinism. (Although, of course, you can't really equate Tea Party activism with Republicanism, as such. But the tone and tenor of Republican organs, NRO for example, has gone sharply downhill under their influence.)
craner
Beast of Burden
This is fun; Hannity is so out of his depth here, and doesn't even realise it.
With these idiots on board, the GOP has no hope, and rightly so.
Look, neoconservatism was a sophisticated, cosmopolitan thing. It no longer has a real constituency in this vulgar GOP.
With these idiots on board, the GOP has no hope, and rightly so.
Look, neoconservatism was a sophisticated, cosmopolitan thing. It no longer has a real constituency in this vulgar GOP.
craner
Beast of Burden
And David Horowitz is an odd one. I have a little respect for him, because I think Destructive Generation is a brilliant and important book, and I also admire his autobiography in some respects, but he's been a fucking buffoon for years. Now he says he's simply employing "left-wing tactics" against the left, but he's just acting like a fucking buffoon.
craner
Beast of Burden
And I do have some sympathy with this after being bombarded with Barthes, Foucault, Hayden White, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism, a relentless neo-Marxist assault on our perspective on literature (for fuck's sake!) (with a large dash of Freud and Jung, too). Maybe wouldn't go as far as indoctrination, but certainly heavy persausion, that the more down-to-earth ignored, but the more ambitious and persuadable - like, I'm ashamed to say, myself - brought wholesale. By my MA I was imbibing more complex and confused neo-Marxists like Deleuze & Guattari. It was like the slippery slope from dope to heroin, or Sufism to jihad.
Wait, I'll stop now.
Wait, I'll stop now.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
robust, if entirely unconvincing. right, so neoconservatism isn't just militarism, & it's unfortunate (if not that hard to understand) that a few critics have laced it with anti-Semitic overtones. it's still almost impossible, given the repeated disasters of the last decade, to take much of what he says seriously. It's almost reads like parody; Afghans "have an unprecedented opportunity to develop because of neoconservative-reforms"? spare me. though I guess there is something to be said for a man going down with a sinking, burning ship.
I have to say, I don't have much sympathy for Frum or conservative intellectuals in general. They knew exactly what they were getting into with all the faux populist appeals to the fears of the crazier sections of the GOP base. CPAC invited Glenn Beck as a keynote speaker, for crissakes. And GOP congresspersons have been soft-pedaling the the ugliest bits for awhile now, the racism & threats of violence & so on.
Granted, I wouldn't have much sympathy for Frum anyway, given that he's an odious little troll who coined "axis of evil", coauthored the leading apologia for the Iraq invasion, advocated for invasions of Syria & Iran, has repeatedly called for the U.S. to install a national ID card system, etc.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The -isms are there for job creation / status boosting in the academies - there's only so much of genuine interest left to be said about Shakespeare or Chaucer.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Even though Hitchens seems to be on the down side of a large bottle of whisky.
"This Tea Party nonsense is an ideological and aesthetic disaster, augmented by weird Palinism. (Although, of course, you can't really equate Tea Party activism with Republicanism, as such. But the tone and tenor of Republican organs, NRO for example, has gone sharply downhill under their influence.)"
wrong
"With these idiots on board, the GOP has no hope, and rightly so."
and wronger
It's called building the base. The Republicans have been a party of disgruntled southern racists and archie bunker reactionary idiots since the late 60s. The guys in charge are smart and cynical enough to embrace the idiocy.
People said the same thing about the Goldwaterites in the 60s, but they laid the foundations for FOUR DECADES of Republican dominance. They did it by taking a bunch of idiots on board, playing to their racial hatred (in progressively less veiled terms) and jettisoning the New England Buckley brand of "smart" conservatism. Their modus operandi is to just keep pushing more and more to the kooky right. In 1964 Goldwater was considered a right wing nutbar. By the 1980s the Reagan Republicans (who were originally Goldwaterites) had become too wacked out for him. Now the Reagan generation Republicans like Frum are finding the newer Conservatives to be too kooky. That's just how the Republican party works.
For the last 40 years the Republicans have been constantly moving to the right, with the Democrats always try to move to the center and market themselves as Republican Lite. What would be considered far-right in 1972 is now left-of-center. That's why many of Richard Nixon's policies were actually to the left of Bill Clinton's on the political spectrum - so far left that they could never be passed today. Nixon: went off the gold standard, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, opened relations with Communist China, instituted price controls. Clinton ended welfare, killed Glass-Steagall, slashed capital gains taxes, pushed NAFTA ratification through, expanded capital punishment, introduced draconian drug laws, bombed Yugoslavia, etc. etc..
They may be in the wilderness for a little while, but I'm not quite ready to believe that the Republicans have actually reversed roles with the Democrats on any sort of permanent basis. I see very little evidence that the Democrats have stopped being the permanent rump party of beautiful losers. Republicans still set the agenda until proven otherwise.
Question: If the Republican Party and the movement conservatives are so stupid, then why did they completely and utterly dominate American politics from 1968 to 2008? Is there any evidence that the first two years of the Obama presidency will be different from the first two years of the Clinton presidency (aka a short break before another lurch to the right)?
wrong
"With these idiots on board, the GOP has no hope, and rightly so."
and wronger
It's called building the base. The Republicans have been a party of disgruntled southern racists and archie bunker reactionary idiots since the late 60s. The guys in charge are smart and cynical enough to embrace the idiocy.
People said the same thing about the Goldwaterites in the 60s, but they laid the foundations for FOUR DECADES of Republican dominance. They did it by taking a bunch of idiots on board, playing to their racial hatred (in progressively less veiled terms) and jettisoning the New England Buckley brand of "smart" conservatism. Their modus operandi is to just keep pushing more and more to the kooky right. In 1964 Goldwater was considered a right wing nutbar. By the 1980s the Reagan Republicans (who were originally Goldwaterites) had become too wacked out for him. Now the Reagan generation Republicans like Frum are finding the newer Conservatives to be too kooky. That's just how the Republican party works.
For the last 40 years the Republicans have been constantly moving to the right, with the Democrats always try to move to the center and market themselves as Republican Lite. What would be considered far-right in 1972 is now left-of-center. That's why many of Richard Nixon's policies were actually to the left of Bill Clinton's on the political spectrum - so far left that they could never be passed today. Nixon: went off the gold standard, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, opened relations with Communist China, instituted price controls. Clinton ended welfare, killed Glass-Steagall, slashed capital gains taxes, pushed NAFTA ratification through, expanded capital punishment, introduced draconian drug laws, bombed Yugoslavia, etc. etc..
They may be in the wilderness for a little while, but I'm not quite ready to believe that the Republicans have actually reversed roles with the Democrats on any sort of permanent basis. I see very little evidence that the Democrats have stopped being the permanent rump party of beautiful losers. Republicans still set the agenda until proven otherwise.
Question: If the Republican Party and the movement conservatives are so stupid, then why did they completely and utterly dominate American politics from 1968 to 2008? Is there any evidence that the first two years of the Obama presidency will be different from the first two years of the Clinton presidency (aka a short break before another lurch to the right)?
scottdisco
rip this joint please
except it is an aesthetic disaster, and, partly, an ideological disaster (certainly wrt those parts that constitute the wilder fringes of the Tea Party).
come now.
overt racism, physical violence, assassination threats against POTUS well up from his predecessor, and nutbar libertarianism are not a good look.
this is at least partly fair. given their quite astonishing levels of obstructionism in the last year or so, it seems like they got game. and, of course - without wishing to sound like a tinfoil hat wearing leftist - the international framework may not be as scorched earth capitalism as some in the GOP would like, but neither is it Swedish social democracy, so they can certainly live with a world in which bankers continue to be rewarded and social programs are cut.
i wouldn't call them stupid myself. deeply cynical in some respects, but not stupid. (a lot of their base is fucking stupid, but that's another matter.)
as for your second question, good question. if fever pitch is reached with these Tea dicks, and more merry obstructionism from the GOP continues, then who knows...
"except it is an aesthetic disaster, and, partly, an ideological disaster (certainly wrt those parts that constitute the wilder fringes of the Tea Party)."
From what point of view? From a 1970s parent's point of view, punk was an aesthetic disaster -- but that was kind of the point, right? Assuming that you are on the left, this is supposed to offend your sensibilities and cause you to scorn the stupid teabaggers. When the rednecks hear upper-middle class liberals deriding them as stupid, that just strengthens their resentment of the "elitist" others and strengthens their support for Palin. Reveling in childish behavior, regressive ignorance and thumbing your nose at the pointy-head liberal teacher-figures is part of the appeal. It's the same as how parents hating punk made it seem more rebellious.
Ideologically, they have managed to syphon off a lot of the discontent that would have historically fed into labor movements or progressive politics, and indoctrinated the economic losers to a point where they support strange pro-corporate "libertarian" policies that are blatantly not in their self-interest. In order to win them over they really had to stoop to new lows, but from a realpolitik sort of POV I would still call it successful. I think that Scott Brown is early evidence of its success, and the same strategy may win congress for the Republicans in November.
"overt racism, physical violence, assassination threats against POTUS well up from his predecessor, and nutbar libertarianism are not a good look."
Yeah, I will admit that they are taking it to new, alarming levels, but it has happened before and become the new normal. People on the left thought the same thing about Reagan's thinly veiled racist "welfare queen" tirades at first, but then it became standard beltway opinion that something had to be done about lazy irresponsible black people on welfare, then Clinton had his Sista Soulja moment, ended welfare, scaled up the war on drugs, etc.. People on the left initially thought that Bush's war on terror, wiretapping, illegal detention, and war crime policies were totally unacceptable, but by the time Obama got in they were basically normalized. He has continued most of them and refused to delve into any of the past abuses.
I will grant that maybe this time they really have gone too far, but historically the fringe right of the Republican party has been a sign of things to come.
From what point of view? From a 1970s parent's point of view, punk was an aesthetic disaster -- but that was kind of the point, right? Assuming that you are on the left, this is supposed to offend your sensibilities and cause you to scorn the stupid teabaggers. When the rednecks hear upper-middle class liberals deriding them as stupid, that just strengthens their resentment of the "elitist" others and strengthens their support for Palin. Reveling in childish behavior, regressive ignorance and thumbing your nose at the pointy-head liberal teacher-figures is part of the appeal. It's the same as how parents hating punk made it seem more rebellious.
Ideologically, they have managed to syphon off a lot of the discontent that would have historically fed into labor movements or progressive politics, and indoctrinated the economic losers to a point where they support strange pro-corporate "libertarian" policies that are blatantly not in their self-interest. In order to win them over they really had to stoop to new lows, but from a realpolitik sort of POV I would still call it successful. I think that Scott Brown is early evidence of its success, and the same strategy may win congress for the Republicans in November.
"overt racism, physical violence, assassination threats against POTUS well up from his predecessor, and nutbar libertarianism are not a good look."
Yeah, I will admit that they are taking it to new, alarming levels, but it has happened before and become the new normal. People on the left thought the same thing about Reagan's thinly veiled racist "welfare queen" tirades at first, but then it became standard beltway opinion that something had to be done about lazy irresponsible black people on welfare, then Clinton had his Sista Soulja moment, ended welfare, scaled up the war on drugs, etc.. People on the left initially thought that Bush's war on terror, wiretapping, illegal detention, and war crime policies were totally unacceptable, but by the time Obama got in they were basically normalized. He has continued most of them and refused to delve into any of the past abuses.
I will grant that maybe this time they really have gone too far, but historically the fringe right of the Republican party has been a sign of things to come.
Last edited:
