"The Tea Party is Breaking the GOP" -- The Republican Incompetence Caucus

.

In a recent opinion piece, political commentator David Brooks, with whom I tend to agree a lot of the time, took a look at the unraveling of the Republican Party.  The GOP probably thinks that the Democrats are universally rejoicing at the confusion within their ranks, but while most liberals (including those Democrats who continue to be liberals, and you know who you aren't) can't help feel some satisfaction in how the GOP is now suffering, after all the hostility it has directed towards the Democrats and the President, the fact of the matter is that the old Republican Party, despite some of the scum that infested it in times gone by, also was home to many perfectly sane and decent politicians, including the late State Senator John Heinz, Olympia Snow, and a few others who served their constituents well, as well as the entire USA.  But of late, Republican policy has changed from conservatism and obstructionism to viciousness and recklessness.  They have stopped serving the interests of conservatives across the USA, and instead have focused on very specific goals based only on how much those goals help their funders, namely Big Business, and how much of those goals fire the imagination of the most ignorant and bloodthirsty among them, and which goals are likely to rile up liberals the most, such as opposition to gun control, and Planned Parenthood, and Evolution.  As far as Evolution is concerned, most Republicans do not care.  But they know liberals do care.  In my humble opinion, they do it just to upset us.

Brooks's main thrust is that the Tea Party, and the leadership among the younger conservatives, began to go wrong when they took it into their heads to portray themselves as revolutionaries.  What made the Republicans most attractive to their political base was the fact that they slowed down change to what they thought of as a speed at which it could be done advisedly, with all careful consideration, instead of (what they saw as) the headlong race that Democrats wanted to adopt.

But admittedly, that was not sexy.  They wanted to romanticize their conservatism, and the Conservative Press embraced that with open arms, and between them the Tea Party and Fox News have elevated Republican dysfunction to a point at which they can no longer elect a speaker for the majority party.

The Republicans have historically been ---at least for the last century or more--- the party of the Haves.  At least since the Depression of the Thirties, it is the Democrats who have been the party of the Have Nots.  But their strategy of romanticizing their conservatism, which Brooks traces to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh, made radical conservatism, which presented a picture of good old, gun-toting, testosterone-filled, white male dominated, USA First, Anti-Islamic, abortion-scorning, Bible-Thumping into something any redneck could love, and succeeded wildly with the Have Nots, to the complete bafflement of the liberals.

It did not matter that the Democrats said they would raise taxes, but reduced them instead, and that the Republicans who promised to lower taxes raised them instead; it was the promise that was important: Read My Lips.  The innocent, ignorant power base of the GOP absorbs the rhetoric, loves the posturing and the romance of the good old cowboy USA, while it is uncomfortable with the Peace-Treaty making, pro-education liberals.  Liberals stand for taking care of the poor and elderly.  Liberals stand for more school.

Conservatives promise an endless summer, with no responsibilities.  Oh sure, they demand personal responsibility.  That means you can do anything you like.

The David Brooks article really details, with clear logic, why radicalizing their platform did not work for the Republicans, and might have very long-term consequences for them and for everyone else.  They see that the problem with not passing a budget is one of marketing, public relations, which means advertising.  They don't see that not passing a budget actually harms their constituents.  They think of it as Xtreme Politics.  The GOP has become seduced by Madison Avenue.

Anyway, we have to make enough sense about what's going on to avoid complete insanity, but it is impossible to make enough sense of it to actually affect the fallout.

P.S. Readers must be careful: whether the GOP is unraveling or not is obviously a matter of perception; unravelment is not a precise term, nor does it imply that the process is irreversible.  I for one —if you haven't figured this already— regard what's happening to the GOP with more alarm than satisfaction.  It would be presumptuous to offer solutions; the GOP, after all, belongs to those who are unraveling it (if they are in fact doing that).

Arch

Public Addresses: Uniquely American Problems

.
One of the hardest things to do, especially in political life in the USA, is to communicate effectively with the public.  This problem exists in both spoken communication: the announcements politicians make to the public, on YouTube, or on the Web, or over Television, and written communication: transcripts of speeches by political persons---Candidates, spokespersons, or what have you---or political writing.

For whatever reason, the American Public has become accustomed to shorter sentences, simpler arguments, a limited vocabulary; and has shown a preference for form over content, and style over facts.

Recently, there was a question on a public discussion group whether Socialism promised things that ultimately caused harm.

Now, obviously, the harm caused by anything is most frequently in the eye of the beholder.  The consequences of any sort of political action are many, and some of them are good, and some are bad, and whether the one outweighs the other is a matter of perspective.  Obamacare is a case in point.

*Thousands have gotten medical insurance, who did not have it before.
*Insurance companies have raised their rates, despite the fact that everyone coming on board for the first time has resulted in incredible increases in revenue.
*It is becoming increasingly clear how despicable the pricing of Insurance premiums is.  But bear in mind: classical free enterprise theory explicitly states that anything is worth the price people will pay for it.  This is one reason I detest classical free enterprise theory.
*The opposition of Conservatives and the GOP to Obamacare is being revealed as ultimately political.  In other words, they only pretend to oppose it because it is supposed to be bad policy; rather it is a notch in the gun of the Democrat Party, which is unpleasant for the GOP to admit.

Amidst all this, Bernie Sanders continues to put forward ideas that have been sidelined for decades: give teachers better wages; raise the minimum wage; repair roads and bridges and parts of the infrastructure that needs maintenance.  Strengthen Social Security.  Put curbs on the power of lobbyists.  Reverse the Citizen's United Supreme Court Decision.  Control the sales of firearms.

He gives the arguments that have been given for decades, which almost everyone outside the left wing of the Democrats (and a few idealists among the Socialists) rejected, saying that it would make the country a communist paradise.  But these ideas and arguments have not been put forward boldly.  They have been mumbled apologetically by Democrats who fully expected that they would be opposed.  But now Bernie Sanders is shouting them from figurative rooftops, and a new generation of Americans are hearing them for the first time.

Can it be true that there is someone who opposes the insane interest rates on student loans?  Is there really someone who thinks guns should be controlled, other than that crazy Obama?  Can there really be people out there who are for raising the minimum wage?  But won't that bankrupt businesses that depend of slave labor, such as fast food restaurants?

Is it possible someday that we could have a public transportation system that was cheap and reliable?  Us older folks have heard these ideas for ever, but some young people are hearing them for the first time, and it is possible that pretty soon it will not be a foregone conclusion that all these ideas will be rejected outright.

But to make simple, bold, unqualified statements ("unqualified" means without conditions; not that the statement is bad) is risky.  Simple-minded people love categorical statements, but categorical statements are usually false in the world in which we live.  When an intelligent politician makes a guarded statement, it is denounced as "too nuanced."  Nuanced means that the person says he or she will do something in certain circumstances.  How else is one to make a statement?  A bold statement is what George H. W. Bush made:  "Read my lips:  No New Taxes!"  Too bold.  He did put in new taxes.  He should have said:  "I will try my level best not to raise taxes, or institute new ones."  But that would have come across as wishy-washy.

Bill Clinton was well known for being cautious in his statements, or at least moderating them when questioned about them.  Well, he was bright enough to see that qualification was necessary most of the time, and honest enough to admit it, even if he is considered to have been a president of questionable integrity.  I believe that he was just about as honest as most presidents, though Obama appears to have set a high watermark for unimpeachable presidential conduct.

Arch