No Future for the GOP?

craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Well, no, Wolfowitz and Perle, for 2, for example, were not supporters of the Vietnam War. In fact, by the 70s they were actively aggressing against Kissinger.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
You're sounding like Nick Cohen
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't mean too, but it's always worth reading about the backgrounds of certain characters, and in this case particularly so. Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann is a really good book, if you're interested. I could recommend more esoteric and in-depth stuff, but you may not be interested.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
IMO the fundamental underlying narrative of American politics since Johnson has been the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1964 and the aftermath.

While signing it, Johnson said that the Democratic Party was "signing away the South for 50 years".

With 2014 just around the corner, I would say that he was remarkably prescient. The blowback was immediate, with Nixon taking the obvious, easy route to power: the Southern Strategy. It's worked pretty well for 46 years now, and the Teabaggers are just the latest iteration. Don't underestimate race as the ever-present national obsession. It's basically like class in the UK (from what I gather).

There are a lot of facets to movement conservatism, but the issue of race is always just under the surface. A lot of the touchstones of modern conservatism also double as dogwhistle terms that carry racial meaning. States Rights = the right to segregate blacks. Libertarianism/Anti-"socialism" = don't give my money to poor black people. Blaming the entire financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act just marks a more naked form of these themes.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
States Rights = the right to segregate blacks. Libertarianism/Anti-"socialism" = don't give my money to poor black people.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't equate those exactly -- there's been a strong metropolitan libertarian streak for a long time. Who could be more metropolitan and libertarian than Ayn Rand? This strong tide crisply summed up by P J O Rourke in the late 80s/early 90s, of course.

State Rights, however, is still a massive issue in the American political psyche, I agree -- but in a way, why shouldn't it be? It's a sophisticated political argument, tragically tainted by and tied to Southern State pro-slavery and racism.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
"who could be more metropolitan and libertarian than Ayn Rand?"

Well, Nietzsche's oft-stated and visceral hatred of anti-semites, along with his rather disdainful take on the German people didn't stop the Nazis from appropriating him either. Contradictions don't bother these people.

Sorry for fulfilling Godwin's Law there, but I think it actually is the best available analogy.

"It's a sophisticated political argument, tragically tainted by and tied to Southern State pro-slavery and racism."

I actually agree. I'm in favor of anti-Hamiltonian decentralization, and favor change being legislated rather than decided by an undemocratic federal supreme court. No one uses the term states rights though, unless they are pretty much broadcasting their racism.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
Those healthcare challenges are being made on a pretty shoddy legal basis and are going to fail pretty quickly. I think the state level politicians are just doing some PR, registering their opposition on a hot issue that they really have nothing to do with. It's just opportunism on their behalf, rather than a serious Republican national strategy.

There are always going to be states' rights issues and legal turf wars with the Federal government, even ones that cut both ways like medical marijuana, but the specific phrase "states' rights" when used in any sort of political context tends to be viewed as a euphemism for southern pro-segregation policies. Left leaning people would tend to use a universal term like "civil liberties" and not frame it in terms of the state, even if the fight is at the state level vs. the federal government.
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
rumble said:
"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.
Click to expand...

rumble: if we can just take this paragraph (an analysis i can well support, incidentally, though i don't think all Obama's followers are as happy w WoT abuses/excesses as much as Bush's could revel in them, which you discuss below; true, he has managed to normalise some things for many, as you also go on to say, though he rightly got a lot of goodwill w his initial Gitmo closure commitment, and i'd think that - i'm covering a multitude of sins when i say 'US legal issues aside', as i know they are many, but i am not too current on what court is doing what - to speak broadly, people can understand the difficulties of getting Gitmo shut down, but it is a huge difference from Bush merrily keeping it puttering along), and then take your question about from which point of view, and place your question in your response that follows to my next excerpt (i bold your text that sits particularly well w what i originally said re aesthetics);

rumble said:
"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.
Click to expand...

we can get into my aesthetics shout, from that point of view.

so, er, we're basically in agreement.
i should probably not have put the ideological bit in w aesthetics, and are having to rephrase myself as i go, granted, because your expanded answer about the fringe historically being a portent, i agree w, and would have written myself if i'd had time. wrt ideology, given more time, i can say, in a nutshell: if they do go too far this time (and i am speaking purely from the pov of my imaginary GOP friend), then, even ideologically it is a disaster, yes, as hypothetically there could be many years in the wilderness for the GOP.

if it turns out this is a portent and a re-energised, even less pleasant GOP is soon trading punches (and not just obstructing) and perhaps even overwhelming the Dems again soon at the federal level, then, sure, from the GOP pov, it ain't no ideological disaster.

i definitely agree the Tea Party are going great guns (excuse the pun). i don't like it, but i'm not blind, either.

let's think aloud about predicting what might happen. if the Teabaggers get such a head of steam up and the GOP continues its really rather robust obstructionism, and - for the sake of argument - healthcare as Obama has constituted it, is eviscerated, what next for the USA? let's say - for the sake of argument - Palin becomes the next POTUS.

then what's going to happen? christ, Naomi Wolf's cries of 'proto-fascist' might come to fruition.. ...that said, changing demographics and checks and balances are counting against these Teabaggers.

that swiftboat thing really fucked Kerry's shit up, no? (or is that overplaying it?)

rumble said:
Don't underestimate race as the ever-present national obsession. It's basically like class in the UK (from what I gather).
Click to expand...

very true.

Craner got me into James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans, Cracker. well worth checking out.

craner said:
State Rights, however, is still a massive issue in the American political psyche, I agree -- but in a way, why shouldn't it be? It's a sophisticated political argument, tragically tainted by and tied to Southern State pro-slavery and racism.
Click to expand...

well said, Ollie.

but yes.

the GOP have done brilliantly politically for years in getting poor white folk to vote wholly against their economic interests.

rumble said:
There are always going to be states' rights issues and legal turf wars with the Federal government, even ones that cut both ways like medical marijuana, but the specific phrase "states' rights" when used in any sort of political context tends to be viewed as a euphemism for southern pro-segregation policies. Left leaning people would tend to use a universal term like "civil liberties" and not frame it in terms of the state, even if the fight is at the state level vs. the federal government.
Click to expand...

definitely a sensible distinction.

i look forward to Padraig's thoughts from Chicago later on :cool:

lastly, some Tea pr0n. i know we all know what time it is, so i'm not shoving any of this down y'all throats

ZZ56685266.jpg


teapartysign1sm.jpg


racist_tea_party.jpg
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
about the mandates though: what a terrible idea. Way to give the Republicans the perfect campaign issue.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
This is the most amazing piece of cognitive dissonance I think I have ever seen:

x2_dee0d8


How can the teabaggers take a condemnation of their entire movement by their ancestral enemy, Alexander Hamilton, and mistake it for a some sort of pro-tea party statement. Mind-boggling
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
scottdisco said:
you clearly know more on this than i, care to expand?

cheers.
Click to expand...

Well, basically everyone who doesn't already have health insurance is going to be forced to buy insurance from private insurance companies, which already averages $13,000 per year for a family. If you don't buy, you get fined and the IRS comes after you for the money.

It seems like a highly intrusive kind of thing; the type of big government nuisance that Republicans love to harp on about.

Originally the idea was that there would be a public option that would be much cheaper along with the mandates, but it got abandoned. I would say that the Dems were never even planning on doing it in the first place. What they did instead was put in subsidies for the poorest to take the edge off of the expensive policies. It is still just subsidizing insurance profits though, because it doesn't really do much to bring down premiums.

It's just a really unpopular idea that Obama ran against during the primaries, and criticized Hillary for supporting, but then pulled a 180 on after becoming president.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
"let's think aloud about predicting what might happen. if the Teabaggers get such a head of steam up and the GOP continues its really rather robust obstructionism, and - for the sake of argument - healthcare as Obama has constituted it, is eviscerated, what next for the USA? let's say - for the sake of argument - Palin becomes the next POTUS.

then what's going to happen? christ, Naomi Wolf's cries of 'proto-fascist' might come to fruition.. ...that said, changing demographics and checks and balances are counting against these Teabaggers."

I think we agree on most of this stuff, but I doubt that Palin will be the nominee. She's just too incompetent. She's more useful to them as an outside voice like Limbaugh. My money is on Scott Brown.

They let the controversial attack dogs like Palin do the dirty work, but they usually end up running a "compassionate conservative" like George Bush or Scott Brown when they are trying to unseat a fairly popular Democrat.

The whole "independent" Tea Party/rogue Palin thing is great for the actual Republicans because it allows them to fire up the base while maintaining plausible deniability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top