Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
Don't want to get everyone's hopes up, but...

- the reaction of rightwing US pundits to John McCain's ascendency in the primaries suggests that the message of the right wing coalition is sliding into incoherence. He's an anti-abortion, foreign policy hawk. He's charismatic. By any analysis, he's the only republican candidate who would stand a chance of keeping the democrats out of the white house - he can hold at least some of the centre ground, and undermine either Obama or Hilary on experience and moral credibility respectively. His success in the primaries suggests that the party faithful realise this, and furthermore that northern, secular republicans are tired of being defined in terms of religion. But the pundits hate him because he opposed Bush's tax cuts (at a time when the US budget deficit was at a record high) and he works with the democrats to get things done. Get that last one especially - what exactly do they think governments do all day?

- the republican party can't call off it's attack dogs, even when their message is clearly counterproductive. Rush Limbaugh is telling listeners to vote democrat in the event of a McCain nomination 'so the republican party doesn't take the hit'. I doubt his audience will do that, but they may well stay at home with a few beers on election night and hand it to the democrats. This is all strongly reminiscent of the tory's self-destructive battles over europe in the 90s. It suggests that the republican shock troops are now in the general's seat deciding strategy - never a wise idea for a party serious about being in power.

- the religious right have been massively gamed by a shameless piece of divide and rule politics, and they're starting to realise it. They have supported the republican party against thier economic interests in jobs and healthcare because they were promised action on the Red America issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun control. And they have got fuck all in return. Where is the republican equivalent of the civil rights and welfare bills that the democrats passed in the 60s? Bush was sincere when he told America he wanted action on these issues, but ultimately he wasn't calling the shots, and the party restricted his christian right agenda to people who couldn't punish them at the ballot box - for example, in making AIDS relief to the third world conditional on preaching sexual abstinence. It is no easier or harder to buy a gun or to get an abortion in the US today than it was in the 90s - if I was a working class evangelical Christian who had voted for Bush, I would feel mighty pissed off about that. And the problem with relying on Christians for votes is that they can always pin thier hopes on the next life if this one isn't working out to thier liking. Again, huge potential for voter apathy there.

- and if the republican major domos won't implement a grassroots agenda on issues with little economic significance, then the rank and file have no hope of action on issues intimately connected to economic performance - to whit, immigration, which is to the republicans what Europe is to the tories. Big business is dead against immigration reform - they know that those mexican labourers working for poor wages and no benefits are keeping inflation low and profits high, and are stopping the trade deficit from being even worse than it actually is. And they are the ones running the republican party. Look at the way the republicans approach immigration - just like the eurosceptic tories, there's a lot of hot air and finger pointing, and absolutely zero genuine action. If the party had thrown the poor right (the Reagan democrats, as they were) a few bigger bones on Red America issues before now, maybe they could carry this off. But the gulf of mistrust between the top and the bottom of the party is widening.

- looming behind all this is an existential crisis in the republican party that makes what the tories have been through in the Blair era look like small beer. Because the ideological programme the republican party has adopted under GWB - a christian morality, an aggressive foreign policy doctrine, an opening up of the state to private enterprise - precludes small government. And what exactly is the point of the republicans if the cant deliver small government? It's not just about budget deficits and taxes, although the practical side becomes increasingly important as the economy weakens. But it's also about whether Americans ultimately really want to live in a theocracy where government propegates the law of the bible. And whether they opposed communism for decades, only so the federal government could intrude into the most intimate areas of family life with sermons on the morality of abortion, and cut shadowy deals with big business that undermine thier local communities. It doesn't help that republicans are hardly introspective by nature - like the tories, it may take them several years before they can even face these problems honestly, let alone begin to deal with them.

- and I haven't even mentioned Iraq.

- finally, every cultural and political movement has a natural lifespan. And it's so often the way that the seeds of it's destruction are planted at the time when it seems most dominant. It happened with the American left in the late 60s - is history now repeating itself on the other side? And the other question is, do the Democrats have a Reagan of thier own - a politician talented enough to exploit the weakening republican position? Well, they might have more than one. Even though it hasn't produced an outright winner, there's a confidence coursing through the democrat primary race - a choice between two thoroughbreds is not a bad choice to have to make, especially given the paucity of the republican field. I'd narrowly favour Hillary this time, as John The Baptist to Obama's Messiah - the democrats should size the chance to get her into the White House while the republicans are in a hole, and let her do the spadework on welfare reform which she is amply experienced and motivated to do - the political hit will be minimal, since the right hates her so much already. Then hopefully Obama can step in in eight years time and really lead the American liberal left back to the promised land.

Maybe this is all a bit premature. The republicans still have a lot of money, a lot of hate, and a well oiled election machine. But so did the Tories, and it did not save them once their time was up. McCain is going to be fighting a war on three fronts - against the distrust of his own party, a confident and focussed Democratic campaign, and the appalling record of the Bush administration. You'd give pretty long odds on him winning.

So what do dissensians think? Will the contradictions in the republican coalition finally tear it apart? Are the noxious neo-cons finally being nudged into that dark night?
 

vimothy

yurp
Yeah -- this has been on the cards for a long time.. spot on analysis re: fracturing of the conservative consensus, though I would take issue with a number of things (such as the interests of the American working class).

Part of the problem is that GWB has tried to do the big government thing (that you suggest his poor Christian right constituents deserve), but has also found that this has betrayed the Regan-Goldwater tradition in the GOP and alienated the libertarian vote (15% of US electorate according to some studies -- hence the Ron Paul "protest vote" possibly potentially ruining REp hopes if he stands as an independent). I don't think you properly underscore the fact that these two elements are largely irreconcilable: it's either big government coservativism (a la Nu Labour) or minimal government conservativism (a la Barry Goldwater). That's a major fault line, which parallels the problems of the Labour Party under Blair. Of course, the majority of the libertarian vote is anti-war (I suspect), whereas the majority Christian right is, while hardly Wilsonian (again, just conjecture), but at least solidly Jacksonian.

The "noxious neo-cons" are long since gone. Wellcome back "realism"!

And, of course, the populism of the Democrats on trade and globalisation, while (obviously) popular with the voters who believe that China is stealing their wages, will hardly deliver prosperity, or indeed, reverse any of the trends that underly recent real wage stagnation in the US.
 

vimothy

yurp
Oh, and I think that the Dems are pretty far from having a Reagan -- but I do think that it will be nearly impossible for them not to win.
 

vimothy

yurp
I would too, but if I had a primary vote it would go to Obama - I don't think Hillary would beat McCain.

Hilary is the fight the Reps want.

I'd vote Hilary over Obama, I think. Maybe not -- the whole dynastic thing is getting a bit ridiculous ...
 

vimothy

yurp
- and if the republican major domos won't implement a grassroots agenda on issues with little economic significance, then the rank and file have no hope of action on issues intimately connected to economic performance - to whit, immigration, which is to the republicans what Europe is to the tories. Big business is dead against immigration reform - they know that those mexican labourers working for poor wages and no benefits are keeping inflation low and profits high, and are stopping the trade deficit from being even worse than it actually is.

BTW -- it's worth pointing out that policies aimed at keeping illegal immigrants illegal actually depress wages of un-skilled American workers, because they reduce the bargaining power of un-documented workers, forcing them to accept wages at less than the market price. The presence of un-documented labour in the US produces a secondary labour market with a lower equilibrium wage and a negative effect on legal un-skilled wages.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Interesting to see how the election looks across the pond...

Never count out the ability of the Republican party to close ranks. Yes, there are cracks in the party between the libertarians, the upper-management types, and religious nuts, but they'll quit their bitching once the general election gets under way. Paul almost certainly won't run as an independent, and has said as much -- if he does, the Repubs will gun for his Congressional seat in the primaries (and already are). He's already saving money and falling back. Even the religious right could be satiated by a smart VP pick -- they won't vote for Hillary, that's for sure. And they were quite happy with Bush's Supreme Court picks (and it has gotten harder to get an abortion in many places in this country since the 90s, a result of work at the state, not national, level).

I still think Hillary can pull it out, but if she does it means that either the Dems lose to McCain (who she's got nothing on), or Hills barely -- she will lose all these midwestern states to McCain just as she lost them to Obama. Talk radio resumes the Clinton bashing, she loses congress in 2010 and re-election in 2012 -- ineffective one-term president. As for Obama -- who knows? Certainly would make this year's media circus more entertaining. Seems like he could win the GE big and have "political capital" -- but what would he spend it on? Welfare is basically a dirty word in this country, "welfare reform" always means cuts. Health care seems to me increasingly like a boondoggle (the gov't-corporate alliance again), and O's plan hardly seems revolutionary...

I wish privacy concerns and civil liberties were as important to anti-big-government people as free trade and "states rights" but the right has done a good job severing these two in the minds of a lot of people. The ACLU is at the top of the Republican hit list, and the siege mentality since 9-11 hasn't helped at all. I don't see this as a major concern in the election except among the Paulistas, and their voice is mostly heard as antiwar. It almost never gets connected to what GFC mentioned -- state and corporations working together to spy on, collect data from, and otherwise control the citizenry.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
When I was in the states last week it really rammed home how a lot of Republicans hate McCain. Saw a right-wing talk-show where the starting place that everyone assumed was something like "Obviously we all hate McCain, let's talk about it" rather than "What do we think of McCain?". The recurring phrase was that if he gets the candidacy it will be "the end of the party of Reagan". I don't get it though, the main thing that they seem to hate is his stance on immigration (basically not that different from that of Bush) and his stance on the environment (which they will have to come round to eventually I suspect).
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
When I was in the states last week it really rammed home how a lot of Republicans hate McCain. Saw a right-wing talk-show where the starting place that everyone assumed was something like "Obviously we all hate McCain, let's talk about it" rather than "What do we think of McCain?". The recurring phrase was that if he gets the candidacy it will be "the end of the party of Reagan". I don't get it though, the main thing that they seem to hate is his stance on immigration (basically not that different from that of Bush) and his stance on the environment (which they will have to come round to eventually I suspect).

and they don't like his opposition to torture either, bless their bible-bashing hearts
 

vimothy

yurp
and they don't like his opposition to torture either, bless their bible-bashing hearts

Andy McCarthy:

I was not being subjected to vituperation about Sen. McCain; I, among others, was being subjected to vituperation from Sen. McCain.

Moreover, the vituperation was directed at us... We had dared suggest that our law's categorical ban on torture ought to be rethought. Sen. McCain’s approach was not reasoned dialogue. He labeled us torture mongers. I found this vituperation particularly dismaying because (a) my proposal was intended to reduce incidents of torture and other prisoner abuse; (b) though I disagreed with Sen. McCain's insistence on a categorical ban, I acknowledged both his logic and good faith; and (c) I consistently made a point of noting the awe with which I regard Sen. McCain’s courage and patriotism.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"boondoggle"
What's that?

"and GFC too?"
Gabba Flamenco Crossover isn't it?

"and they don't like his opposition to torture either, bless their bible-bashing hearts"
Well, I can see that is a difference of opinion but you wouldn't think it was such a big one.
I saw a website where someone said "If McCain gets in it will unleash loads of terrorists on the US prison system". Oh no, there will be loads of (unconvicted) terrorists in jail in the US, that bastard is going to undermine everything we hold dear.
 

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
I don't think Hillary would beat McCain.

Hilary is the fight the Reps want.

I disagree actually, Crackerjack. And Vimothy, while that's true, it's another sign of how the republicans are more obsessed with point scoring than with retaining power.

Looking at it objectively, Hillary is a far stronger candidate than Obama for 2008. Say what you like about the woman (and lord knows, the republicans do just that) - but you cannot deny she is an absolute fucking trouper. GOP strategists must be wondering just what the hell they can hit her with that they haven't already tried. And she's still coming at them. Bless her, she's a liberal Terminator.

2nd point - her gender. Think about how many election decisions are made emotionally. Think about how women outnumber men in the 50+ agegroup in the US - the age bracket that always votes, come hell or high water. I might be barking up completely the wrong tree here, but might Hillary not have earned a grudging respect for her sheer tenacity, even amongst republican women? And might that not grow in significance, as the republican attacks on her in the election proper grow more misogynistic in tone (which they surely will). Given that it follows 8 years of a very testosterone-soaked administration that has failed to deliver across the board, it would not surprise me at all if even right-leaning women decide, once they get into the privacy of the polling booth, that she's earned a shot at the title. That gives McCain a big demographic problem before he's even started.

3rd point - the economy. Hilary has long been identified with using the power of the state to help redress inequality in US society, and she has taken mighty republican flak for that. But that could backfire spectacularly if the economy continues to go south - a lot of americans will be looking at thier bank statements and thier mortgage payments over the next few months, and deciding that they could use some of that state help right now. The republicans have a problem of narrative - there's no credible way they can pin blame for the current chaos on Hillary when she's been away from the white house for 8 years. The voters let them try trickledown economics and the voters got burned. Yes, Vimothy, I know it's not that simple, but we're talking about popular perception here, and lofty economic arguments are not going to convince voters that they aren't poor when the contents of thier wallets is telling them otherwise. And the emotive arguments that the GOP use against Hillary are going to be undermined firstly by sheer staleness (they've been banging the same drum for 15 years after all), and more importantly by voter perception that the economy is in a mess and it's the the current administration wot done it.

4th point - apathy among republican voters, which I think will be the biggest problem McCain has to deal with. The democrat activists who supported Hillary's reform programme in the 90s will be out in force, disciplined, motivated, and wanting revenge for what the GOP did to her in the first Clinton presidency. And Rush Limbaugh is telling republicans to not bother voting? If I was in McCain's shoes I'd be very worried about that indeed. It's a universally recognised law of politics that voters punish divided parties.

If McCain was facing Obama, he could credibly play the experience card in a time of national crisis, ramp up the all-american hero (which he is, to be fair), puncture Obama's vagueness on policy and bluff his way over his lack of economic authority because Obama isn't too credible on economics either. But I don't think he can beat Hillary, not with the economy going the way it is.

Never count out the ability of the Republican party to close ranks. Yes, there are cracks in the party between the libertarians, the upper-management types, and religious nuts, but they'll quit their bitching once the general election gets under way.

People said exactly that about the tories before the 1997 British election, Gavin, and it wasn't enough to stop them getting hammered. There comes a point where parties are more concerned with being righteous, even if it means losing power. I think the republicans may have reached that point.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Looking at it objectively, Hillary is a far stronger candidate than Obama for 2008.

But are voters all that objective? There have been polls for years now that say something like 48% of them will definitely not vote for her, regardless of opponent. That's one fuck of a prejudice to overcome.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
But are voters all that objective? There have been polls for years now that say something like 48% of them will definitely not vote for her, regardless of opponent. That's one fuck of a prejudice to overcome.

This is really key, and the right wing attacks on Hillary are FAR from exhausted. If she is the nominee it'll be a nasty campaign on both sides.

Also GFC, I think you're underestimating the cracks in the Democratic Party as well... Hillary voted for the war and that's a huge burden to carry. Both she and McCain have a stake in saying the war is going well. Anti-war voters may just stay home or vote Green. Same problem with the economy: Clinton supports NAFTA, which is unpopular among a wide swaths of voters.
 

vimothy

yurp
3rd point - the economy. Hilary has long been identified with using the power of the state to help redress inequality in US society, and she has taken mighty republican flak for that. But that could backfire spectacularly if the economy continues to go south - a lot of americans will be looking at thier bank statements and thier mortgage payments over the next few months, and deciding that they could use some of that state help right now. The republicans have a problem of narrative - there's no credible way they can pin blame for the current chaos on Hillary when she's been away from the white house for 8 years. The voters let them try trickledown economics and the voters got burned. Yes, Vimothy, I know it's not that simple, but we're talking about popular perception here, and lofty economic arguments are not going to convince voters that they aren't poor when the contents of thier wallets is telling them otherwise. And the emotive arguments that the GOP use against Hillary are going to be undermined firstly by sheer staleness (they've been banging the same drum for 15 years after all), and more importantly by voter perception that the economy is in a mess and it's the the current administration wot done it.

To a large extent this is all academic. Like you say, if the perception among American voters is that their economic interests are being hurt by Bush's policies, or by more nebulous things like "globalisation", "free trade", or possibly just "trade", then we can make a pretty confident prediction of the distribution of votes. In fact, I wasn't disagreeing with that part of your post at all. I'm personally convinced the White House is the Democrats' to lose.

However, I think there some serious problems to address in the Democrats' positions. One problem is that populism sounds good, but will not necessarily keep the Dems in power and the GOP in opposition. For instance, simply taking more money from the richest 1% (who already pay about 25% of US taxes) will make America less unequal, but it will do that by pulling the top down, not the bottom up. In fact, if the Dems really want to reduce inequality, they will have to make taxes more, not less, regressive, i.e. they will have to tax the poor and especially the middle class more.

It is also important not to conflate real wage stagnation with inequality. While it is true that the US economy has added millions of new jobs since the mid-60s (more than doubling the size of the labour market) and that real compensation for workers has been constantly rising during that time, real hourly wage has remained stagnant, or more accurately, cyclical, yet stagnant. In a much discussed article for Foreign Affairs, Matthew Slaughter and Kenneth Schreve stated that,

Less than four percent of workers were in educational groups that enjoyed increases in mean real money earnings from 2000 to 2005; mean real money earnings rose for workers with doctorates and professional graduate degrees and fell for all others.

However, it is widely recognised that trade and immigration policies (Republican or otherwise) are not to blame for the stagnation in American wages. According to Jagdish Bhagwati, a leading international trade policy economist at Columbia University, writing in the FT,
All empirical studies, including those done by some of today’s top trade economists (such as Paul Krugman of Princeton and Robert Feenstra of the University of California, Davis), show that the adverse effect of trade on wages is not substantial. My own empirical investigation concludes that the effect of trade with poor countries may even have been to moderate the downward pressure on wages that rapid unskilled labour-saving technical change would have caused.

Second, the same goes for the econometric studies by the best labour economists regarding the effects of the influx of unskilled illegal immigrants into the US. The latest study by George Borjas and Larry Katz of Harvard also shows a virtually negligible impact on workers’ wages, once necessary adjustments are made.​
In fact, the true cause is technological advancement,

The culprit is not globalisation but labour-saving technical change that puts pressure on the wages of the unskilled. Technical change prompts continual economies in the use of unskilled labour. Much empirical argumentation and evidence exists on this. But a telling example comes from Charlie Chaplin’s film, Modern Times. Recall how he goes berserk on the assembly line, the mechanical motion of turning the spanner finally getting to him. There are assembly lines today, but they are without workers; they are managed by computers in a glass cage above, with highly skilled engineers in charge.

So my point is that falling returns to un-skilled and semi-skilled labour are a product of the movement of the US economy into the post-industrial age, a movement that is beyond the ability of government to affect. In addition, if Clinton (or Obama) opts out of further Doha rounds out of the mistaken belief that trade is somehow to blame for real wage woes, the potential losses for the US economy are in the region of $500 billion annually. Actually rolling back trade liberalisation could cost any or all of the $1 trillion that current liberalisations bring annually to the US economy. This is a road that the current Democratic hopefuls seem likely to travel down, and in that respect they are potentially much worse for the US and world economies than the old Democrats, represented by Bill Clinton and his crowd.

Will the Democrats kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
 
Last edited:
Top