The Grand Old Old Old Old Party
It's definitely new and might be rightly characterized as modern to see Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, but that is where any relationship to this century ends. Except for her questionable taste in wardrobe her entire being is representative of days gone by. I cannot for the life of me determine the long range benefits to the Republican party of thrusting this woman into the limelight. She may be rallying the so-called base, but by all observations this group is shrinking both in number and in influence. For all the jaw dropping on the left, I imagine there is even more consternation on the right. Pity the poor fiscal conservatives, who have waited eight long years for the chance to reclaim their party.
Let's face it, this is a tough time for Republicans and it was not an easy choice. John McCain must have seemed like a good compromise between the truly maverick Romney who could not quite fake his way into the hearts and minds of the far right and the comforting Huckabee who would never find his footing in the mainstream. In the best case scenario McCain could have occupied the middle ground and gained some distance from the disastrous Bush. Win or lose this might have given his party a chance to rebuild its reputation among Independents and the Anti-government crowd. Woe unto them the ascendance of the Neanderthal from the North.
This election is a referendum on George Bush to be sure but, it is also a contest between the old and the new. The danger signs are everywhere. The newly registered favor the Democrats by a wide margin and that could spell big trouble for the Grand Old Party. Even the young Evangelicals are abandoning the worn out wedge issues that once spurred voter turn out on the Christian right. The young will not be so easily divided by the old canards of race and gender. They do not fear a Gay. They are also keenly aware of their environment and determined to protect it. In the future the purple territory that often separates the red from the blue will give way to green.
Sarah Palin may have given a momentary boost to her ticket, but she threatens to be a drag on her Party's future. Her addle-brained calls to "Drill Baby Drill" are be better suited to the gold rush era when greed was one of the driving forces in America's western expansion. They simply do not fit in the now, when all but the most stubbornly thoughtless are aware that fossil fuels are on the endangered energy list. Our future and that of our children demands that we wind down the drills and rev up the windmills.
Her claims of foreign policy experience would be laughable were they not so frightening. Whether or not she can see Russia from her bathtub, it is clear that she is blind to the new reality. She cannot tell one war from another and she does not seem to understand the complexity of our mission abroad. Like George Bush she stubbornly insists that we must claim victory in Iraq. This after all of our Military leaders have assured us that victory is simply not possible. Modern wars are not winnable. The age of information and transportation has guaranteed that our enemies are ever evolving and cannot be vanquished by any army. For the foreseeable future, 'war" and or dealing with terrorists, will involve a complex mix of police action and diplomacy.
Then there is her assertion that she knows how families feel, what they are going through. Well maybe she knows how HER family feels, but she clearly did not give a hoot about Joe Biden's family. She had no reaction to his expression of true emotion on the eve of his son's deployment. Ms. Palin's indifference was not a pretty sight, nor was it attractive to see her sneer at those pesky low income borrowers. She clearly was not much moved by their story either. Didn't they realize that they were poor and not deserving of a home loan? It is easy to see why she feels no compassion for those folks ... her home is lovely, her net worth is quite substantial and her running mate is livin' large to say the least. Her aw shucks demeanor masks a steel-souled killer instinct. For all her winkin' and blinkin' she is more Ma Barker than Annie Oakley.
This brings us to her fondness for murdering wolves. Any modern hunter will tell you that killing predators is a no no. Today's ecologists have affirmed and reaffirmed the danger of removing carnivores from their habitats. We have learned from our mistakes. We have wiped out whole species in some National Parks only to find those areas overrun with prey, the flora and fauna trampled and destroyed by overgrown herds of buffalo, their rivers in ruin. It is only when wolves and bobcats were returned to these areas that nature's delicate balance was restored. A good ole' boy would never dream of slaughtering these creatures. It may be a modern convenience to kill wildlife from within the confines of a helicopter, but only a cave-man/woman could do something so stupid and callow.
I have a deep and abiding respect for America's two party system. I do not often agree with our friends from across the aisle but I grant them every right to their beliefs. This is what so unnerves me about the spectacle of Ms. Palin and her crowds of booing acolytes. How can she speak of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle when she is busy lobbing firebombs at her opponents? With her sneering manner and her willfull repetition of untruths she is not exactly laying the groundwork for compromise. There was great promise in the opposition of John McCain and Barack Obama. This election was an opportunity for a sober discussion about the future. Instead it has become a study in contrast on the merits of derision vs. vision, attack vs. advance and ignorance vs. enlightenment.
The Republicans can afford to lose this election, but they must win the battle for the soul of their party. Sarah Palin is a flame thrower and for their sake I hope that she burns out and fades back into the shadows of the arctic night. There are thoughtful, reasonable folks on both sides, and the voices of reason must win out. We need to hear from their economists, not their creationists, from their visionaries not their reactionaries. It is time to retire the old soldier to his beloved Senate and the old tactics to the Rove archives. Ms. Palin is a throwback, a narrow mind in time which urgently requires expansive thought. It is time for her to pack up her six pack and go home to her hockey fields. There are Republican leaders out there with great intellect and true hearts. The future is calling on you to fight your way to the forefront of your party It is time now for an authentic maverick to emerge and lead the Grand Old Party into the 21st Century.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A interesting post, indeed. What is concerning is the interlocking underlying connection between the political parties and the psychological factor of the public. Are we, the good people guilty of opaque deception where we decide to merge our beliefs in people that actually are incapable of controlling all world affairs? What is happening in our good world? We have people who spin tangled webs of deceit and manipulation in order to take charge.
Sarah Palin is attractive and speaks nicely. is that a substitute for correct leadership? I don't know. I just don't know. It confounds me that the interlocking network of the world results in war, confusion, hate and treachery. Are the politicans to blame for the wrongs in the world? Or is it us - the good people who went ahead and wrote their name in the box when we voted?
I know that when I went to post I did so in good faith. I BELIEVED there was some good out there. But are any of the leaders out there following up on their promises? I am a democrat and proud of it because it offers freedom in place of opression. I hope to see transformation to the worldly powers to be. However, in defence to Sarah - her clothes aren't THAT bad. However, she shouldn't wear red suits because her skin has blue undertones and red washes it out entirely.
True, a throwback to a bygone era, physically. However, there is a new strain of fascism present in her and Todd's "Alaska first" association with AIP, her association with Exxon is not unlike Rice's Chevron ties and the philosophies of a class and race culture war are right down the middle of the fascist model that would have turned Goldwater a Democrat had he been alive to see it coming.
"There are Republican leaders out there with great intellect and true hearts. "
NAME ONE.
Go on......
(*sound of crickets)
This month can't pass by quickly enough, and then she can go back to Alaska and face the music awaiting her.....
Great post, but I'm a little unnerved with the parallels between Palin and Dubya Bush. Both are very incurious and dull-minded, both see the world as a monolithic struggle between good and evil, both are very impressed with themselves, and both are easy to manipulate with flattery. In short, my concern is that the same people who manipulated Bush and ultimately drove our country into the state that it finds itself, can use similar tactics with Palin. If the Cheney-esque cabal can get her into the White House, they can repeat the process that they used with Bush, keep cashing government checks and keep holding power. In short, I'm not so sure that a thoughtful, compromising group EXISTS within the GOP, or at least one that has enough internal power to be able to claim to represent the party.
The GOP is all about good vs evil - and, of course, they're the ones who define and classify everyone into one of those groups. That kind of thought process is inconsistent with compromise. That kind of thought process must simply be defeated and denied.
I look forward to Barack Obama looking into the GOP and pulling out some individuals that he can work with - thoughtful, smart, shades-of-gray people - and putting them in his cabinet. That's the solution. Kill the black and white crowd by ignoring them.
I hope you're right about Obama looking into the GOP and pulling out some individuals that he can work with if he wins. Please answer this though, when has Obama not walked lock step with the party line and actually reached out to the other side?
He worked with Tom Coburn - the most conservative member of the Senate - on campaign reform, and he worked with Dick Lugar on nuclear weapons security. In addition, Chuck Hagel is a close confidante of Obama, and Obama has said openly that he would like very much to have people like Hagel, Lugar and Arnold Swarzneggar in his cabinet.
In my opinion, it's time for Obama to start assuming a strong leadership role, and start by naming the people he would like to have in his cabinet, particularly in the Treasury, Attorney General, Defense, State, HUD, Interior, Homeland Security and Fed roles. And talk up Republicans who he would like to include, like the three I mentioned plus maybe Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and others. This is a time when America has no leadership, and Obama needs to start assuming the role to whatever extent he can without being too presumptive. Look at it as an audition - say, "Here's what I'm going to do the first day I become president."
Try this, maybe Obama hasn't had to "walked" with the other side of the partisan line since the democrats have been right on the issues that matter to the American people. However J. McCain has had to buck his own party "cross the line" because his party has been wrong.
"With her sneering manner and her willfull repetition of untruths she is not exactly laying the groundwork for compromise."
True, but why not make that point with fewer, shorter words? "With her hate and her lies she makes us her foes, not her friends." There's no need to be overly polite about it. It is, after all, our country she's out to ruin.
Wouldn't you love to see a TV ad showing her smilin' and winkin' her way through that debate, don'tcha know--under Richard Gere's voice singing "Razzle Dazzle 'Em" from the movie version of "Chicago"?
Your message here? As Freesia 2 said, "You're always spot on."
Posting? Keep it up! You're really good at this!
Exactly, standard. They are out to "Billy Flynn" us. Queen Latifah chosen to play Gwen Ifell was no coincidence. SNL doesn't intend to allow them to do it. WE will not allow them to do it.
I'm tremendously impressed with the quality of the discourse on HuffPo, not just the bloggers but the commenters too. I'm almost starting to believe that the USA will weather this storm, and make the necessary transition to a saner future. We in the rest of the world are watching with bated breath.
Great post but we should never underestimate anyone in politics - especially when they have a following.
Also remember that for some reason, Sarah Palin WANTED to be thrust into the limelight. For her the world is a stage. Does she know what she is getting into? Who knows, but its highly likely that: she does not ponder many deep questions; has a strong sense of self (self delusion); and like others, does not appreciate what "IMPACT her decisions" have on the nation and the world. Its is all "that easy" for her. All of it. This attitude might have been refreshing in Alaska politics, but it is all too old, been there done that, and dangerous in National and World politics.
For the Republican Party, Sarah Palin is: a facelift, not a soul search; and the more they follow her, the more they are concentrating on the wrong part of the body politic.
Thank you so much for this insightful commentary on what Republicans must change if they are to survive. "Conservatism" used to mean not a retreat to some mythical frontier, but a sort of sober good sense that today is much more exemplified by Obama than by his rival. This, and not flag-waving jingoism, is what we need to survive in a complex and interdependent world. Watching my teenage son and his friends, I'm acutely aware that most future voters--not just blue or red--will be comfortable with diversity, and instinctively pro-environment. That said, there will always be a need for one party to serve as a counterpoint to the other's excesses, and for thoughtful citizens to disagree on the important issues of their day. If this election can help restore that kind of thoughtfulness--and correct the excesses of years of neocon rule--this country will regain its greatness. Obama/Biden 2008!
This year there were no good options for the Republican party. Yes, McCain is a disaster, but so'd be anyone else they had. The smart guys all sat it out, or were smart enough to shove their way to the trough much earlier, which meant that the republican primary was composed solely of B list candidates to start with.
After Bush, what the Republican party needs most is the the thing they're just about to receive: ten years in the wilderness. They'll be back, but in the meantime they've got, as PG Wodehouse once put it, "a lot of tedious spadework ahead of them".
I agree. As bad a McCain is, he was the best they could do. But I don't think the Republicans will be back in ten years. The Democrats are the new Republicans. The Republicans are the new Whigs.
Beth, I love you babe. Great thoughtful piece.
Thank you for this article Beth -- well written! Nice to hear an intelligent woman voice concerns about Palin in a very clear voice! It would be nice to think that maybe Palin will read your article, but I'm not holding my breath -- Palin says she "Doesn't have time to read..." Palin is a horrible role model for our children!
For their own sake, the Republicans need to lose this one, and lose it big. I mean in a really smashing, humiliating way that serves as a referendum on not just the last eight years, but the last several decades. It would force a sea change in the party, and might bring some of its actual talents to the fore. There are (still) a few good minds on the right. I wouldn't lose so much as an hour of sleep over a Bobby Jindal presidency, for example. On the other hand, we've also got Newt Gingrich back in Washington, playing little games and jockeying for 2012 position with all the finesse and subtlety of an evangelical preacher soliciting carnal relations. I'm not sure which one would be worse, Gingrich or Palin; it's almost like trying to decide between a nuclear Iran and an unstable Afghanistan.
Watch this and see if you still feel the same about that hour of sleep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YQs9whiZao&feature=related
I hope that 28 years from now, we are not saying the same thing about the democratic revolution that began in 2008, then became drunk on power, slipped into corruption and forgot why they won in the first place.
Guaranteed to happen. Party dominance is a matter of generational cycles. This time, we're voting Republicans out, because their party and their philosophies have been utterly and spectacularly compromised. They need a degree of reform that will only come from an overwhelming loss in 2008.
And once they've gotten that, tightened up the ship and reinvented themselves, and the Democrats have had a few years to clean things up and then screw things up as their own best talents pass away and are replaced with ambitious mediocrities, well, we'll all be voting the Republicans back in for the next generational cycle. It's happened time and again in American politics, and in its own way, it's the strongest argument for the two party system.
That's something I think about every time someone talks about the Republicans being totally demolished. I'm a Democrat and I stand with the Democrats. But if we control both the executive and legislative branches, it's only a matter of time before our leaders get corrupted.
Nah... I highly doubt it. Not that Obama or anyone else is immune to being corrupted.
The "revolution" on the right was corrupt to begin with. Ours may be comprimised, but the basic values are good -- protecting the environment, healthcare reform....
And the issues are too pressing to allow for the dems to become corrupt to any real degree. The people will demand real action the more things get real bad. And things will get real bad. It is hard to imagine: the enviroment, the economy, health epidemics, war.... it is going to be a real challenge to survive, let alone thrive.
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I see less corruption in our future.
LOL, they do, indeed, need to re-evaluate themselves. They have become way too corrupt, stupid(knowing better but doing bad things, anyway), inept, and far from whatever they claim to have had been in the past.
Ms. Broderick states there are Republican leaders with great intellect and true hearts. This may be the case but I can't think of one Republican on the national stage fitting this description and certainly no Republican leaders. In fact, there aren't many Democrats who have great intellect or true heart whatever that means. The problem for Democrats is that they abrogated their roll as opposition party with ascension of Bill Clinton and the DLC's third way political strategy. The Democratic Party today is dominated by free market Neoliberals who differ from Republicans in degree of adherence to liberal free market theory espoused by Milton Friedman. I wish this weren't the case but it is as the recent bailout measure clearly demonstrates. If I'm mistaken I'd love to be enlightened.
"I'd love to be enlightened."
Even the Buddha didn't promise enlightenment, but here's my brief take on the subject:
We Democrats are capitalists, but we favor even-handed regulation and mandatory disclosure to keep the marketplace fair and honest. Completely free markets have produced monopolies, uncontained fraud, child labor, twelve-hour workdays and seven-day workweeks, poor houses, fascist totalitarianism, and the conditions that have given rise to communist totalitarianism. Not good.
The Neo-Cons only care about having the lowest possible tax rates on their own income and wealth. Absolutely everything else they espouse is just window dressing: patriotism, smaller government, the exclusively Christian origin of an America that never was, and so forth. So, they fight every last government program other than the military and "faith based initiatives" (which they need to promote to get the poor and poorly-educated to vote against their own best interests).
Today's Democratic Party favors a balanced budget and pay-as-you-go government, as opposed to the borrow-and-spend-ruinously approach of the Reaganites and both Bush regimes, who have run up three quarters of our oppressive national debt. Milton Friedman has little to do with the Republicans' current approach--and nothing at all to do with ours.
Republicans "leading their party into the future"? . . Sorry, not a rat's buttooty chance of that ever happening in this lifetime.
They all voted in lock-step with Bush to deregulate and cause the mortgage mess, and the
wall street melt down. . They have proven themselves to be nothing but greedy whores for
Bush/Cheney, never caring about us or the country.
So there AIN'T NO FUTURE FOR THEM. . . it's over and done and they are out, end of game.
They will all be voted out of office, one by one.
Starting with the biggest de-regulator of them all . . . John McCain.
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in