If Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, and Mitt Romney think that by setting aside the hot button issues, their “Conversation with America” will cause the Republican Party to attract a larger membership, they are fooling themselves. The majority of the GOP has moved much further to the right, choosing to circle the ideological wagons to make the Republican Party pure, refusing to set aside cultural issues, and continuing to spew hate for all who think differently than they do – which means no room for moderates or independents. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich continue to pine for the “good old days” - defending a string of failed policies that they advocated for decades.
And then there are the crazies:
The newest star of the ‘conservative’ media, Glenn Beck, is whipping the crazies into a frenzy. Since moving his show from CNN to Fox, Beck has turned up the volume and offered a combination of ignorance, manic fear-mongering and weepy nationalism. His goal is to give credence to every conspiracy theory about Obama and the Democrats that comes down the road. He has become a Pied Piper of far-right lunatics, luring out resentful and paranoid right-wingers with his nightly diatribe of fear and hate.
When not telling people that Obama is going to take away their guns (a lie), or claiming that Obama is planning to move to one world currency (another lie), or touting books written by John Birch Society nutcases, Beck spreads the lie that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is secretly constructing concentration camps into which Americans will be herded and perhaps exterminated, once martial law has been declared. During one particularly loony performance, Beck claimed that because of President Obama's policies, America is becoming a fascist dictatorship (while showing videos of Nazis marching in the background). Of course he provided no evidence for his claim, but he put on a heck of a show while saying it. When he was called out on his lies, Beck backed off and admitted it was all bogus – that he was saying it all just in fun. If Obama really was moving the nation towards fascism, then how is a critic like Glenn Beck still on the air? What makes Beck, and Fox News, so evil is that uninformed people believe this stuff. People do not understand that entertainment news is not about news – it is all about making money.
In response to warnings by Glenn Beck about America’s descent into fascism, Jon Stewart had the best response:
“I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you, because I've been there. A few times. In fact, one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes for the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, and invade a country that you thought should not be invaded, but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like ___! (Expletive removed.)
One thing that is so remarkable about far-to-the-right-wingers like Beck is that they are throwing tantrums about the stimulus bill and raising taxes on the extremely wealthy (by just 3%) but do not care about warrantless wiretapping of American citizens or the lack of healthcare for over 44 million Americans or schools that are crumbling.
Have these discontents looked at their most recent paycheck? Even though their taxes have just recently dropped, these folks still feel oppressed by government. I believe their frustration really comes from the fact that when they cried "socialism" most Americans did not seem to care. Now they are screaming "fascism" in the hope that it will pull Obama down, and still their words do not cause a majority of citizens to rise up. Why is this? In a poll released in April, Rasmussen Reports found that just 53 percent of Americans say that capitalism is better than socialism (with 20 percent choosing socialism and 27 percent unsure). Young adults prefer socialism by 33 percent with 30 percent undecided. Most voters do not think that a little socialism (as in Medicare and Social Security) is a bad thing.
In the meantime, charges from ultra right-wing talking heads that Obama is a socialist or even a fascist (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is not hurting his job approval ratings which are steadily above 60 percent. These right-wingers are angry and frustrated that few people are listening. Democracy can be very frustrating when you lose.
Besides Glenn Beck, there are more right-wingers going off their rockers, seeing imaginary communists and fascists behind every tree:
*Michelle Bachman (R-MN), an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, went on the radio to claim that the Obama administration is planning to herd young people into re-education camps.
*Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) whipped up an April 15 Austin, Texas tea party crowd by talking about the blood of tyrants.
*Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) said, "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes ..." (He was referring to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn proposal to raise the state tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction.)
*Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, strongly implied that the Lone Star State is considering seceding from the Union because of Washington's ‘oppressive’ stimulus spending. Yet, just this week he asked the federal government for millions to help combat their swine flu outbreak.
*Spencer Bachus (R-AL), in confusing socialism with communism, said, "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists." When pressed by a reporter, Bachus said there were 17 "socialists" in Congress, but when asked for specifics, Bachus named only one legislator – Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described "democratic socialist," whose vision of a socialist ‘safety net’ is more like Stockholm (Sweden) than Moscow (Russia). It allows for wealth but also cares for the down-trodden.
*Rush Limbaugh (Republican pundit) said, “I hope he (President Obama) fails.” It would be one thing if Republicans were simply arguing intelligently that Obama's stimulus plan and budget will fail. That would mirror how Democrats felt about the Iraq war – a doomed mission that would cost far too many human lives for the lie of WMDs. Contrary to what these loonies are saying, Democrats never said they wished for Bush to fail; they just thought he would. Wishing for President Obama to fail is the mark of an ideologue with blinders on – making his ideas more important than the people of this nation.
These right-wing nuts do not seem to understand that the more extreme and shrill their hateful rhetoric grows – the more they scream “fascism” – the less convincing they become to the broader public. They are becoming more ridiculous in the public eye with every extreme word shouted and every stupid stunt pulled. They are causing the ranks of the Republican Party to be decimated at a time when our country could use a viable opposition party with intelligent arguments.
Having Democrats in control of the White House and Congress seems to have caused the ultra right-wingers to lose their minds. Actually, I have been noticing the loony tunes for years, but their screaming has become excruciatingly loud since the election, causing a majority of the general public to finally realize just how crazy, self-centered, and immoral these GOP leaders are.
The Republican tent will remain small as long as the far-right-wing lunatics are running the asylum.
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
The joke is on us
As surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Republicans will offer tax giveaways to the wealthy as the cure-all for surpluses, deficits, boom times, and recessions. The government’s Office of Management and Budget communications director Kenneth Baer said this about the Republican alternative budget, "I have two words for you: April Fool's."
Just to give you some context, as the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Their payday was staggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed in 2008, in 2007 millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% were allowed to keep an extra $45,000 a year! As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle class and poor were basically stagnate.
As the Republicans try to give away billions to those who are already living high on the hog, what do they budget for health care, research on renewable energy, natural disasters, or to bring down the deficit? Do they actually put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in their budget as Obama did in his?
While the Democratic budget cuts taxes for middle class families, and makes critical investments in health care, education and clean energy, the Republican budget released on Tuesday called for "a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter," which would result in a massive reduction in government revenue and another generous tax break for the wealthy. They also propose to cut taxes for business, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly. The Republican budget plan would gradually eliminate the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, offering a stark alternative ‘voucher’ plan so the elderly would have to buy their insurance on the open market.
But please beware, Republicans are playing a shell game with the numbers: You, the taxpayer would get to choose whether you want the new tax rate or the old tax rate. This is how the Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue – suggesting that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure. In other words, in order to give you, the public, a more favorable picture of the deficit their budget would create, Republicans are making the assumption that Americans will choose the higher rate – hence, the shell game.
Under the current tax code, an individual making more than $160,850 pays a 33 percent rate; under the Republican plan, that taxpayer could choose to pay 25 percent instead. (For a family, the income threshold is $195,850.) For a family earning more than $349,700, the rate rises to 35 percent, but filers could still choose the 25 percent rate. If taxpayers did decide to pay the lower rate, government revenue would plummet by roughly $300 billion per year, said economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research. This would effectively gut most domestic programs such as healthcare and renewable energy research.
A study by the non-partisan ‘Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White House – and yet Republicans want to do more of the same. What’s worse, the Republicans have not put forward any credible deficit-reduction plans. Their main alternative to Obama's stimulus plan is a $3.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthy that will add that same amount to the national debt.
Once again Republicans want to give an overwhelming share of tax cuts to wealthier Americans. Yet the GOP plan fails to invest in high priorities such as education, infrastructure, public safety and biomedical research. And their plan for Medicare is that workers under the age of 55 would no longer be allowed to buy into the program but instead receive insurance premium subsidies. The Medicare move would gut the program and turn it into a voucher system. The Republicans are basically saying to the retired and elderly who often cannot qualify for insurance on the open market “here’s a small amount against your insurance premium – if you can find someone who will insure you.” The amount of the voucher would all too quickly fall behind the rising cost of health care.
Some of the features of the GOP budget are:
• Rescinding the newly passed economic stimulus package in 2010, except for unemployment insurance for those who have already lost their job;
• Freezing non-defense, non-veteran spending;
• Converting Medicaid into an allotment to states. Turn Medicare into an insurance voucher system. (Keeping current Medicare secure for those who are now over 55.)
• Privatize Social Security – if you lose the money in the stock market it will be your tough luck;
• Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts while setting up a parallel, simplified tax code that taxpayers could opt-in to. Taxpayers would have a choice of keeping the current system, or choosing one that would tax couples making $100,000 (or individuals making $50,000) at a10% rate and taxing those above at 25%.
• Cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% as a “job-creating measure”;
• Increasing offshore oil drilling; no cap-and-trade;
Here is a graph from Republican Paul Ryan's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, because it's a blatant exaggeration. They are saying that this is based on Congressional Budget Office's Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario, but the CBO has never done an analysis that runs through 2080. This graph supposedly compares the Democratic Budget and the Republican Alternative based on spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up to 2080:
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Obama budget only through 2019, and it looks like this:
Apparently, Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections (above) that end in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080.
Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents since World War II. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. How can the average citizen not see that Republicans are in bed with the wealthy?
OMB’s Kenneth Baer was correct – the joke is on us.
Just to give you some context, as the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Their payday was staggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed in 2008, in 2007 millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% were allowed to keep an extra $45,000 a year! As a result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomes rise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle class and poor were basically stagnate.
As the Republicans try to give away billions to those who are already living high on the hog, what do they budget for health care, research on renewable energy, natural disasters, or to bring down the deficit? Do they actually put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in their budget as Obama did in his?
While the Democratic budget cuts taxes for middle class families, and makes critical investments in health care, education and clean energy, the Republican budget released on Tuesday called for "a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter," which would result in a massive reduction in government revenue and another generous tax break for the wealthy. They also propose to cut taxes for business, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package, and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly. The Republican budget plan would gradually eliminate the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, offering a stark alternative ‘voucher’ plan so the elderly would have to buy their insurance on the open market.
But please beware, Republicans are playing a shell game with the numbers: You, the taxpayer would get to choose whether you want the new tax rate or the old tax rate. This is how the Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue – suggesting that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure. In other words, in order to give you, the public, a more favorable picture of the deficit their budget would create, Republicans are making the assumption that Americans will choose the higher rate – hence, the shell game.
Under the current tax code, an individual making more than $160,850 pays a 33 percent rate; under the Republican plan, that taxpayer could choose to pay 25 percent instead. (For a family, the income threshold is $195,850.) For a family earning more than $349,700, the rate rises to 35 percent, but filers could still choose the 25 percent rate. If taxpayers did decide to pay the lower rate, government revenue would plummet by roughly $300 billion per year, said economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research. This would effectively gut most domestic programs such as healthcare and renewable energy research.
A study by the non-partisan ‘Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White House – and yet Republicans want to do more of the same. What’s worse, the Republicans have not put forward any credible deficit-reduction plans. Their main alternative to Obama's stimulus plan is a $3.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthy that will add that same amount to the national debt.
Once again Republicans want to give an overwhelming share of tax cuts to wealthier Americans. Yet the GOP plan fails to invest in high priorities such as education, infrastructure, public safety and biomedical research. And their plan for Medicare is that workers under the age of 55 would no longer be allowed to buy into the program but instead receive insurance premium subsidies. The Medicare move would gut the program and turn it into a voucher system. The Republicans are basically saying to the retired and elderly who often cannot qualify for insurance on the open market “here’s a small amount against your insurance premium – if you can find someone who will insure you.” The amount of the voucher would all too quickly fall behind the rising cost of health care.
Some of the features of the GOP budget are:
• Rescinding the newly passed economic stimulus package in 2010, except for unemployment insurance for those who have already lost their job;
• Freezing non-defense, non-veteran spending;
• Converting Medicaid into an allotment to states. Turn Medicare into an insurance voucher system. (Keeping current Medicare secure for those who are now over 55.)
• Privatize Social Security – if you lose the money in the stock market it will be your tough luck;
• Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts while setting up a parallel, simplified tax code that taxpayers could opt-in to. Taxpayers would have a choice of keeping the current system, or choosing one that would tax couples making $100,000 (or individuals making $50,000) at a10% rate and taxing those above at 25%.
• Cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% as a “job-creating measure”;
• Increasing offshore oil drilling; no cap-and-trade;
Here is a graph from Republican Paul Ryan's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, because it's a blatant exaggeration. They are saying that this is based on Congressional Budget Office's Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario, but the CBO has never done an analysis that runs through 2080. This graph supposedly compares the Democratic Budget and the Republican Alternative based on spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up to 2080:
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Obama budget only through 2019, and it looks like this:
Apparently, Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections (above) that end in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080.
Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents since World War II. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. How can the average citizen not see that Republicans are in bed with the wealthy?
OMB’s Kenneth Baer was correct – the joke is on us.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Bitter fruit
On November 4, an electoral landslide wiped out many of the few remaining Republican moderates in Congress, widening the ideological divisions that have contributed to partisanship and gridlock on Capitol Hill. According to Pew Research, the Grand Old Party’s (GOP) national membership has shrunk to about 27% of the population.
So, what happened? Why did the Republicans lose? There are many reasons, but to name a few: racially tinged character-assassination ads that the majority of the nation saw through, lack of a real plan to help the middle class, different and conflicting messages every day or so, and the Sarah Palin pick. Once Palin was added to the ticket, Christian right leaders climbed on the band wagon and swung into action. They pursued a culture-war strategy focused on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage. To mobilize their base, they also engaged in an ad campaign that played upon intense anger and fear in relation to Obama.
When the Republicans signed off on tactics used by Karl Rove and company, who led them into a harsh “either you’re with us or against us” far-right mindset, there was a lack of compromise, a lack of inclusion, and a lack of tolerance. The Republican base had already subscribed to the belief that government should reflect the views of “real America” which was code for white, Anglo-Saxon, evangelical protestant. Today, although a majority of Americans live in big metropolitan areas, Republicans espouse the belief that “real America” is small-town or rural and, above all, white and aim their election strategy toward that group. It’s called the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy was crafted by Richard Nixon in the hopes of luring the southern white working class away from the Democratic party. He used anti-civil rights rhetoric and racist imagery to achieve this. The 1968 presidential campaign offered the GOP the first opportunity to run the "Southern Strategy." The Southern Strategy worked so well that it has been in continual use by the Republicans since then.
This crisis in the GOP has been building for over 40 years. It goes back to when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Johnson knew that the vestiges of segregation was so entrenched in the South that white southern voters would change to the Republican party once it became clear the Democrats favored black civil rights. He said that the law would cause a generation of Southerners to move to the Republicans. Ever since then, the party has depended upon the Southern strategy of racist rhetoric and fear to stay in power. Subsequent elections proved Johnson right: the South turned Republican.
Since the mid-1990s the GOP became completely dominated by Southerners. In 1994, Newt Gingrich of Georgia ushered in his "Revolution." By 2000, Southern Republicans controlled the House of Representatives with an iron hand under Tom DeLay. From 2000 to 2006 Southern Republican rule was complete: DeLay in the House, Frist in the Senate, and Bush 43 in the driver's seat. Just before the 2006 Congressional election, Republican corruption and connections to Abramoff, a high powered lobbyist, was made public. This allowed the Democrats to win a simple majority in Congress in 2006 – although not enough to be veto-proof or filibuster-proof.
It appears that the Republican party will now become more extreme – leaning ever further to the right. The spectacle of the McCain campaign drove out many Republican moderates and intellectuals -- people like Andrew Sullivan, George Will, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley. This will pose a dilemma for any moderate conservatives that might remain. These moderates had spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them tried to maintain that denial through this election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics grew ever uglier. Now, moderates’ eyes are wide open and they are leaving the party in droves. The number of voters who call themselves Republicans is at a 28-year low of just 27%.
The GOP has exploited race and hot-button social issues for so long that it has whittled away its numbers to the point of becoming a regional party. After losing the presidential election, what remains of the Republican party will become so heavily identified with social and cultural stands -- and so thoroughly right-wing evangelical -- that it will be on the losing side of the demographic changes that are taking place in this country. They will continue to look backwards to what was, instead of embracing the country’s diverse future. They refuse to admit that the nation is becoming more diverse, more tolerant, and more reflective of a 21st Century multicultural society.
The Democrats’ landslide was not only brought about by the Republican use of the Southern Strategy, but also by a majority of the American electorate finally realizing that Republican policies had run the country into the ground. Bush and his gang of neo-cons, who in their zeal to set up a democracy in the Middle East, engineered a foreign policy that so strained the military it undermined America’s ability to finish the war in Afghanistan or be prepared for any other crisis. But the nail in the GOP’s coffin was the total collapse of the tenets of supply-side, trickle-down economics that are at the core of conservative ideology. Wall Street loved the laissez-faire atmosphere that the Republicans in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission gave them. Wall Street ended up crashing and then begging Congress to shore up their losses with an infusion of hefty amounts of taxpayer cash. The financial system has collapsed to the point that even Alan Greenspan, the preeminent deregulator, now believes the government should stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector through better regulation.
Even with the handwriting so obviously on the wall, the GOP base is in denial, refusing to believe that average Americans would reject their cause. A recent poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that McCain lost “because the mainstream media is biased” and the economic collapse, not because the nation grew weary under the burden of neoconservative policies.
The GOP’s long transformation into the party of the way-too-far right seems likely to accelerate as a result of the McCain defeat. The "values" wing of the Republican party will continue to dominate the Republican primaries so that any future GOP presidential candidate will have to pass the evangelical litmus test. It's a recipe for the party to nominate one Sarah Palin after another – and continue losing – just like in Oregon where the party moved to the right in recent years, nominating cultural conservatives, and losing badly for offices at all levels.
With the Obama campaign turning Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada to the Democratic column, the Republican party is in danger of becoming a permanent minority. Their cultural ideology will keep them relegated to the Deep South and parts of the Mountain West. There are now no Republican congressmen left representing New England and much of the Northeast. In the Northwest, their numbers are shrinking. For a second straight election cycle, not one single incumbent Democratic senator lost his seat in Congress.
Here’s the reality: an Election Day poll by the Center for American Progress and the Campaign for America's Future asked whether Republicans had lost because they were too conservative or not conservative enough. By a 20 point margin, voters chose “too conservative.” Seven out of ten said they wanted the Republicans to work with Obama and “help him achieve his plans.”
What happened in this election was, in the eyes of many political analysts, an inevitable backlash after a decade of Republican rule in Congress, during which many of the leaders came from Southern states, and GOP policies were designed to appeal to the party's extremely conservative elements. What remains of the Republican party will be the hard right subculture that attends rallies where crowds chant “Vote McCain, not Hussein!” while harboring frightening fantasies about Barack Obama’s socialist or Marxist or Islamic roots. It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that “the other folks are voting.” These remaining Republican ideologues lean so far to the right that they are unable to abandon their cultural war and move to the middle where they need to be to win elections.
The Southern Strategy has finally born its bitter fruit.
So, what happened? Why did the Republicans lose? There are many reasons, but to name a few: racially tinged character-assassination ads that the majority of the nation saw through, lack of a real plan to help the middle class, different and conflicting messages every day or so, and the Sarah Palin pick. Once Palin was added to the ticket, Christian right leaders climbed on the band wagon and swung into action. They pursued a culture-war strategy focused on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage. To mobilize their base, they also engaged in an ad campaign that played upon intense anger and fear in relation to Obama.
When the Republicans signed off on tactics used by Karl Rove and company, who led them into a harsh “either you’re with us or against us” far-right mindset, there was a lack of compromise, a lack of inclusion, and a lack of tolerance. The Republican base had already subscribed to the belief that government should reflect the views of “real America” which was code for white, Anglo-Saxon, evangelical protestant. Today, although a majority of Americans live in big metropolitan areas, Republicans espouse the belief that “real America” is small-town or rural and, above all, white and aim their election strategy toward that group. It’s called the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy was crafted by Richard Nixon in the hopes of luring the southern white working class away from the Democratic party. He used anti-civil rights rhetoric and racist imagery to achieve this. The 1968 presidential campaign offered the GOP the first opportunity to run the "Southern Strategy." The Southern Strategy worked so well that it has been in continual use by the Republicans since then.
This crisis in the GOP has been building for over 40 years. It goes back to when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Johnson knew that the vestiges of segregation was so entrenched in the South that white southern voters would change to the Republican party once it became clear the Democrats favored black civil rights. He said that the law would cause a generation of Southerners to move to the Republicans. Ever since then, the party has depended upon the Southern strategy of racist rhetoric and fear to stay in power. Subsequent elections proved Johnson right: the South turned Republican.
Since the mid-1990s the GOP became completely dominated by Southerners. In 1994, Newt Gingrich of Georgia ushered in his "Revolution." By 2000, Southern Republicans controlled the House of Representatives with an iron hand under Tom DeLay. From 2000 to 2006 Southern Republican rule was complete: DeLay in the House, Frist in the Senate, and Bush 43 in the driver's seat. Just before the 2006 Congressional election, Republican corruption and connections to Abramoff, a high powered lobbyist, was made public. This allowed the Democrats to win a simple majority in Congress in 2006 – although not enough to be veto-proof or filibuster-proof.
It appears that the Republican party will now become more extreme – leaning ever further to the right. The spectacle of the McCain campaign drove out many Republican moderates and intellectuals -- people like Andrew Sullivan, George Will, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley. This will pose a dilemma for any moderate conservatives that might remain. These moderates had spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them tried to maintain that denial through this election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics grew ever uglier. Now, moderates’ eyes are wide open and they are leaving the party in droves. The number of voters who call themselves Republicans is at a 28-year low of just 27%.
The GOP has exploited race and hot-button social issues for so long that it has whittled away its numbers to the point of becoming a regional party. After losing the presidential election, what remains of the Republican party will become so heavily identified with social and cultural stands -- and so thoroughly right-wing evangelical -- that it will be on the losing side of the demographic changes that are taking place in this country. They will continue to look backwards to what was, instead of embracing the country’s diverse future. They refuse to admit that the nation is becoming more diverse, more tolerant, and more reflective of a 21st Century multicultural society.
The Democrats’ landslide was not only brought about by the Republican use of the Southern Strategy, but also by a majority of the American electorate finally realizing that Republican policies had run the country into the ground. Bush and his gang of neo-cons, who in their zeal to set up a democracy in the Middle East, engineered a foreign policy that so strained the military it undermined America’s ability to finish the war in Afghanistan or be prepared for any other crisis. But the nail in the GOP’s coffin was the total collapse of the tenets of supply-side, trickle-down economics that are at the core of conservative ideology. Wall Street loved the laissez-faire atmosphere that the Republicans in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission gave them. Wall Street ended up crashing and then begging Congress to shore up their losses with an infusion of hefty amounts of taxpayer cash. The financial system has collapsed to the point that even Alan Greenspan, the preeminent deregulator, now believes the government should stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector through better regulation.
Even with the handwriting so obviously on the wall, the GOP base is in denial, refusing to believe that average Americans would reject their cause. A recent poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that McCain lost “because the mainstream media is biased” and the economic collapse, not because the nation grew weary under the burden of neoconservative policies.
The GOP’s long transformation into the party of the way-too-far right seems likely to accelerate as a result of the McCain defeat. The "values" wing of the Republican party will continue to dominate the Republican primaries so that any future GOP presidential candidate will have to pass the evangelical litmus test. It's a recipe for the party to nominate one Sarah Palin after another – and continue losing – just like in Oregon where the party moved to the right in recent years, nominating cultural conservatives, and losing badly for offices at all levels.
With the Obama campaign turning Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada to the Democratic column, the Republican party is in danger of becoming a permanent minority. Their cultural ideology will keep them relegated to the Deep South and parts of the Mountain West. There are now no Republican congressmen left representing New England and much of the Northeast. In the Northwest, their numbers are shrinking. For a second straight election cycle, not one single incumbent Democratic senator lost his seat in Congress.
Here’s the reality: an Election Day poll by the Center for American Progress and the Campaign for America's Future asked whether Republicans had lost because they were too conservative or not conservative enough. By a 20 point margin, voters chose “too conservative.” Seven out of ten said they wanted the Republicans to work with Obama and “help him achieve his plans.”
What happened in this election was, in the eyes of many political analysts, an inevitable backlash after a decade of Republican rule in Congress, during which many of the leaders came from Southern states, and GOP policies were designed to appeal to the party's extremely conservative elements. What remains of the Republican party will be the hard right subculture that attends rallies where crowds chant “Vote McCain, not Hussein!” while harboring frightening fantasies about Barack Obama’s socialist or Marxist or Islamic roots. It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that “the other folks are voting.” These remaining Republican ideologues lean so far to the right that they are unable to abandon their cultural war and move to the middle where they need to be to win elections.
The Southern Strategy has finally born its bitter fruit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)