The GOP's "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument

The conservative movement meltdown is going into overdrive, if Peter Wehner's op-ed in the Washington Post today is any indication. With most Republican candidates explicitly running on a platform promising a revival of Reagan conservatism and berating the supposed "socialism" of Democrats, this former Bush hack writes that "it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism."

It's hard to overstate how absurd this is. Let me repeat: In the stretch run of this campaign, the Republican Party has decided to make this an ideological contest between Reagan conservatism and supposed wild-eyed liberalism/socialism - and now, sensing a potentially huge loss, conservatives are arguing that despite their decision to make this an ideological contest, "an Obama victory would be a partisan, rather than an ideological, win."

Obviously, the Right understands what's really going on in America - and is working to reinterpret that reality.

Having doubled-down on Reaganism, they know that a loss under these circumstances would be not just a momentary electoral set back, but a huge repudiation of conservative ideology, and a huge mandate for progressivism. And so conservatives are already trying to revise history to pretend these last few months of the campaign never happened.

Of course, the very weakness of the "facts" they cite exposes their desperation. For example, Wehner cites public opinion data showing that the word "conservative" remains more popular than the word "liberal." Yet, he omits the fact that when you go beyond the semantics, the same public opinion data he cites shows that Americans are very progressive on most major economic issues.

But substance is secondary to spin on the Right - and likely in the media. As Digby notes, we're already seeing the media Villagers insisting the same thing Wehner is insisting: Namely, that no matter how well conservatives have framed this election as a choice between conservatism and progressivism, and no matter how big a progressive victory that election may bring, America nonetheless remains to the right of Ronald Reagan. In effect, the Right is making the "nah nah nah can't hear you!" argument, claiming that that no matter what America says about its own politics and ideology, the country is an ultra-conservative bastion.

It's a willfully dishonest argument - but one with a motive: To preserve the status quo.

Comments

[tolate2pray4me]

I am sick of Republican bullshit lies and hollow baseless attacks on everyone who does not agree with them. I am proud to be a liberal, I am proud that I care about my fellow Americans, and I am also proud that I served my country in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I am not ashamed to say I want everyone to have health care, I will not back away from the argument that Americans deserve a fair wage for their labor and not the insulting minimum wage we have now. I support quality education for all of our children and am willing to help pay for it, I support helping those in need for no other reason than they are a fellow human being! I am sick of the greed and waste of Republicans and their lame attempts to convince people we must always live in fear of the next attack; this has been going on since the end of WWII. I support a woman"s right to make choices about her physical and mental well being because only she knows what is right for her. I make no excuses for being liberal; I would not have it any other way! Only the Republican Party can make compassion, kindness, equality, dignity, and concern for your fellow human beings such a horrible thing. This is my country too and no Republican hack will deter me from having my say in the direction we go as a nation!

[dramamama1]

Wow! Have you thought about being a speach writer? Your post should never be dumbed down in anyway and spread to everyone who cares. You just made me so proud to be a United States citizen and your fellow Man (Woman). Thank you!

[Bombenhagel]

tolate2pray4me, I am your new fan. I am with you on everything.

[MadJeffersonian]

EXCELLENT POST! I totally agree with your statements. Thank you!

[lucydog02]

The popular phrase in the media now is that the country is "center-right," meaning of course that we're conservative indpedents. In what world?

Dems now have a 40/30 registration advantage in the country and on issues like abortion the US is strongly in favor of choice...so, wouldn't you say that at the very least the country is pretty solidly in the center?

[Cymbeline]

This is yet another example of the double standard. Democrats think they need some electoral "mandate" to enact more liberal policies. When Bush took power with absolutely zero "mandate" he didn't let it stop him for an instant from jamming as many extreme, far-right policies down our throats as possible. There was no demands he "govern from the center" by media pundits.
But now that the Democrats might win, suddenly they have to tread lightly no matter how big the "mandate" according to those same pundits.
Wrong! No matter what the size of the vote, Obama and the Dems should push as hard as possible to enact as much of the progressive agenda as they can. The argument about the legitimacy of their "mandate" can help, but it is no requirement.

[ProudAmerican23]

Can you name a couple of those extreme policies you mentioned here?

[twocrows]

Have you been asleep for 8 years?
Here are a few:
1] the Bush Doctrine: the US can go to pre-emptive war with any country that might, at any future date, develop the will and the ability to make war on us.

2] anyone who disagrees with the current administration. peace activists, Quakers, people who believe in equality, civil rights activists, etc. we can label them as terrorists and spy on them.

3] the truth is what we say it is-- if we listen in on phone calls of our own servicemen and women -- and deny we're doing it -- you just have to agree with us === because we say so.

4] torture as policy: "we don't torture" because we have defined torture as only those actions that cause such harm as to bring a person to the threshhold of death.

5] the suspension of habeas corpus.

6] the "letter of government security" --signed by Bush last June and sitting in a drawer right this minute --that, in case of "national emergency AS DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT that gives this president the sole authority, at his sole discretion suspend and disband Congress, declare martial law and suspend future elections until such time as this president determines the emergency to be over.
and these are just the ones that 1] I know about and 2] I can think of off the top of my head.
bank on it, there are plenty more.

[littlepitcher]

The late, great Kentucky pol and author Harry Caudill referred to the current GOP procedure as "capitalizing (corporate) gains and socializing their losses.
Keep repeating this until it makes sense to you--and to the voters...

[dragonlady620]

That's a pretty good description of the bail-out, isn't it? Seems the GOP has no objection to socialism after all.

[daddysboy]

reagan put a pretty smile on deregulation and ignored AIDS for many years. What is conservative or compassionate about that? America's mental institutions were shut down and it's occupants poured out into the streets during his administration; what was good about that? The early eighties saw the beginning of persecution of individuals for social crimes such as non-commercial drug use on a level never seen before. Whatever supposed good was done during this time is far outweighed by the terrible social consequences of his decisions. reagan provided nothing more than a cover for the first major move of wealth out of the hands of the majority and into the hands of the upper 5%. The saddest part about this is that those most vulnerable in our society paid the heaviest price immediately because there is always a very small percentage of wealth at the bottom to begin with. Socialism was made the dirtiest word of all by the neoCONs because part of what it means is making sure everyone has at least a chance at simple survival; something they could care less about. We are no longer a great society; we are just raw resources for the rich to plunder.

[TimDanMick]

DO ANTELOPES WORRY THAT THE LIONS ARE GETTING ENOUGH TO EAT?

Traveling through my neighborhood last night I noticed that the majority of the expensive homes proclaimed themselves as Obama supporters while most of the homes in less affluent streets were for McCain. The bottom line of politics in the USA is that the GOP is the party which represents the interests of the rich and the Dems are for the poor. The rest is frosting.
Republicans of modest means are sold on a fantasy that they will reap metaphysical benefits( patriotic,religious) from their support, not direct material benefits, they cannot be that naive. What they are offered is an anti-intellectual path to feeling important, being part of something powerful. Loyalty, service, duty. Once a year sitting at the Lords table; happy serfs. Part of the fantasy is that serfs can work hard and aspire to be a Lord and with that dream in mind the Lord's advantages need to be maintained.
Bush was of the patrician class, son of a President; McCain son and grandson of admirals, yet the lie that they project is that they are sons of honest toil.
Please tell Joe the Serf that he is Joe the Patsy.

[shaboopus]

Man, you hit that one out the park. They also ply that tactic to keep us racially/culturally divided!

[ohioan73]

Don't let the GOP feed you any of that cr*p about how the Democrats caused the housing crisis. I used to be a community organizer fighting this issue 6-7 years ago. Most of the sub-prime loans people were steered to even though they qualified for prime fixed rate loans. Most of the loans violated the Truth-In-Lending agreement and were fraudulent 6 ways from Sunday.

Do you know what could be done about it? Zero! Know why? DEREGULATION! You couldn't call a lawyer, you couldn't call the cops, you just got screwed. They pass your loan off and get off scott-free while you get evicted.

Alan Greenspan and the FCC, the OCC and everybody in the Senate, Congress, Local Govt, State Govt etc..received several thousand letters, petitions, calls from hundreds of people and dozens of community organizations all over the U.S. about predatory loans and how deregulation was hurting people SEVERAL YEARS AGO!. I think I actually wrote one of the letters to Greenspan myself back in 2002. It makes me sick to see him throw up his hands in the Senate Banking Meeting to act as if he didn't know anything. He's a liar. They are ALL LIARS. They sold us all down the river. I dont even think we foresaw the economy crash. We were just trying to stop people from getting screwed.

[ohioan73]

Oops typo--not FCC--but FTC.

[madtom]

REPUBLICANS -- They hate us for our freedoms!

[ShawnMichel]

We are witnessing the end of the Republican party.

This is a good thing.

Ted Stevens is a moral figure to this party. As is Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and Abramoff. Republicans say so all the time.

And so the cancer finally starts eating its own.

As we see.

-Grabs popcorn and kicks back, and smiles widely.-

[daddysboy]

There are many great people that have been suckered into the greed of acquiring wealth (which unfortunately in a capitalist scarcity model is a myth for most of them) that can still make valuable contributions to our government and society. We need to work with EVERY able hand and cannot afford to throw people away anymore. That is what has got us in this place to begin with. We need many political points of view in this country; what we don't need is divisive politics. Hopefully the republican party can remake itself into something positive. There IS value in some of the ideas that they have brought to the table when you pull the leeches off. It's just that they have become lopsided with those leeches; something the Democrat party is in danger of as well. We will not win back our government and make our society great again by ignoring a fourth of our citizens for the next four years.

[me4u]

The time has come for a third party! The Country is ready.

[billw8017]

The Whig Party originated after the 1824 election and dissolved into the Republican Party after 1860. The Democrats depended on its Southern bloc after 1896 and might have vanished, too, if Hoover had inspired the county upon the beginnings of the Great Depression.

Today's Republicans are on the wrong side of the issues that Americans care about. They are backward looking and, most of all, with fond regard for some of the country's greatest shames. Christians have to consider how Jesus was a liberal, speaking in favor of feeding, clothing and sheltering the needy, and in favor of paying taxes. When they dream of the spread of evil bringing on the Apocalypse, they should be concerned that they might be the evil. That cannot end well! It is hard to visualize the dissolution of the Republican Party, but do people so wrong headed deserve our respect?

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

Let the Republicans delude themselves. Then it will be just as funny to watch in 2012 when they lose again.

[66rock]

It is very dangerous, a week before the election, to assume we won this one. If voters think it's already over, they will be lazy on election day thinking they can skip it, then we will lose as Obama has been saying.

Vote Nov 4th and bring a friend.

[the93rdkid]

66rock...

You are so right. I keep reminding people of 2000. We've been robbed before. Complacency on our part now will be the death of us.

[billw8017]

Some say realigning elections come every 36 years. These begin in 1824, the beginning of the Jackson era. Then, 1860, Lincoln's election. 1896 was the beginning of an elephantine Republican era. 1932 saw Franklin Delano Roosevelt elected. In 1968 Nixon won a close race ahead of Humphrey and Wallace. If we explain the 2004 election properly, it becomes an augury for elections through 2040.

Characteristic factors of a realigning election include 1) a generational attitude, 2) an enlargement of the franchise, and 3) mechanical attributes. As a mechanical attribute, I am thinking of Wallace's influence in the first Nixon election. Ross Perot had something to do with Clinton's win, and Nader affected the Gore/Bush decision.

I would say that with the 2004 election, the Republicans became the party of the White Male even as Whites were becoming the minority and Kerry would have won except for fraudulent vote counting. Though this is somewhat controversial, it offers a valid pattern for later elections.

[billw8017]

Rethinking what I wrote here: The election of 1824 may be as close in significance to 2004 as any. Jackson carried the popular vote but didn't secure the Presidency until four years later. His platform included extending the franchise to every White male. So, the majority party ever since has depended on the White male vote.

Republican hopes need the disenfranchisement of minority voters. It is understood that thousands of citizens were turned away in Florida 2000 by the generous use of felon lists. Regardless of how you feel about hanging chads, you know that the most people of voting age in Florida favored Gore. Republicans have understood this for a long while and have challenged voters at ;polling stations since before the 1960s. A Democratic victory enhances the chances of minority voters which may be very significant in future elections.

This analysis discounts the Reagan "Revolution;" it becomes a bad joke; and not a trend but a backward looking anomaly. This does not mean wealthy people and commercial interests will lose all influence. The abject failure of the conservative ideology fails even the wealthy. These are not complete fools, and they will express their interests in more practical ways. Just as they support charities, they can spare some support for the government that, really, serves and protects them more than any other class.

[MasterfullyInept]

The money quote.

"Moreover, America remains, in the main, a center-right nation."

This myth lives on inside the beltway, and not even an epic defeat of the right in the upcoming election will dispel it.

Another gem.

"The financial crisis, fairly or not, is laid at the feet of Republicans."

You would think Alan Greenspan finding a flaw in his economic ideology might give us a clue as to what inspired our economic meltdown.But the juries still out o this, you know like it is on evolution.

More grist for the mill.

"People forget that Reagan was a creative intellectual figure; facing "stagflation," he introduced supply-side economics."

OK now we are off into delusion.Supply side, trickle down,trickled on, how ever you label it is exactly what the voting populace has rejected in Obama's recent surge.

Last but not least.

"while taxes and spending remain important, stagnant wages and middle-class anxieties, the housing and credit crisis, health care, immigration, energy, and the environment also command domestic attention. Conservatives need to convince the public that they have a compelling agenda to address these issues."

Um, wouldn't they first have to develop an agenda to address these issues?

[billw8017]

Greenspan thought housing prices would always rise, and this would support consumerism. He called this a "model." Despite the adulation he won, Greenspan will never win a Nobel Prize.

[scordsdu]

That's nonsense. Did you see The Howard Stern Show "Harlem Shuffle" Nah nah nah what! Lah mah mah Lah mah mah Lah mah lah mah!

[JackSPhogbound]

The "nah nah nah can't hear you!" argument is an old and a goodie to the GOP.
Remember that after Bush was awarded a second term, by the narrowest of narrow margins, he called it a mandate.
So this is nothing new.
The GOP will not relent. It is their belief that the White House is their entitlement.
Sad bunch of people, them Republicans. Can't win honestly, can't lose with grace.