As the midterm election approaches, rarely a day goes by when a Republican candidate does not say something that progressives view as outrageous and which a generation ago many Republicans would have viewed similarly. In the last few weeks, a Republican congressional candidate in California called for the abolishment of public schools, another House candidate, this time from Ohio, offered an extremely half-hearted apology for being photographed wearing a Nazi uniform while seeming oblivious as to why this might be offensive to many Americans, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate in 2012, has continued to refer to President Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial worldview."
To some extent, this reflects the nature of American politics today, where no claim or accusation is too bizarre, or requires any evidence whatsoever to be taken at least somewhat seriously by many in the media. Widespread voter anger has been channeled into a hostility, meanness and irrationality that has defined not just a few individual campaigns but almost the entire political climate of the country. Much of this has come from the group of anti-government, generally far- right extremists, which can be lumped together under the term Tea Party. This is a little misleading, because while too much ink, or its digital equivalent, has already been spilled trying to figure out what the Tea Party really means, its close financial and political ties to the Republican Party makes the answer to this question very clear.
These candidates, as well as others such as Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, have come to define today's Republican Party. While many progressives are undoubtedly worried about what will happen if some or all of these people get elected, it is not impossible that some Republicans, if only for strategic reasons, share these concerns. Once elected, these candidates will likely be overmatched, unable to get anything done and prone to even more revelations about their past as well as wacky statements. None of that will be good for the Republican Party. Supporting any kind of extremist view point or statement that was critical of the president and generated enthusiasm for the Republican Party, or one of its factions, was a short term strategy that allowed the Republican Party to bounce back quickly from its resounding defeat in 2008, but it is unlikely to be a fruitful strategy in even the medium turn.
Exploiting voter anger and concern over a range of things, primarily the economy, and channeling it towards anti-Obama vitriol, often of a quite offensive kind, allowed the Republican Party to become relevant, with a real chance of winning control of one or both houses of congress, far quicker than many, even many within the Republican Party, would have thought in January of 2009. However, this approach has led to a Republican Party that is not only dominated by its most extreme wing, but where individuals with nothing in their backgrounds to suggest even a modicum of governing experience or ability are almost certain to get elected to high office.
The strange statements, beliefs, views and sheer ignorance of many Republican candidates may be in that grey area between damaging and amusing during the campaign, but once in office will lean much more towards damaging. Sarah Palin's ascendancy on the national political stage has led some candidates to believe that ignorance is a political asset and that knowledge itself is somehow suspect. This may work when seeking to appeal to an angry electorate, but is unlikely to be as popular once these people take office. Christine O'Donnell may be able to finesse her failure to think of a single recent Supreme Court Case with which she disagreed while she is a candidate, but preparation, hard work and knowledge is essential for anybody seeking to pass legislation of any kind in Washington. If candidates like O'Donnell are elected, they will likely continue to embarrass and begin to isolate the Republican Party through their strange and extremist views, and will also almost guarantee the failure of that party to accomplish anything.
Being the party of voter anger has proven to be a surprisingly effective short term political strategy, but it is a terrible governing strategy. What was left of the more thoughtful, if still conservative, leadership of the Republican Party after the Bush years has been completely defeated in the almost two years since Obama took office. The checks on the party's fringes are no longer there, so people who like to dress up as Nazis, advocate abolishing all public education, want to end Social Security and believe that any economic policy to the left of Ayn Rand is synonymous with Stalinism have emerged as the new face of the Republican Party.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Cliff Schecter: U.S. Midterms: Political Freak Show
Fanned and faved.
The Republicans do not care about facts....they could be 100% at fault but they will never admit their stupidity
Still Democrats have to do more than just be Republican Lite. I worry they will take the wrong message away from this loss and shift to the right.
so when they want to close down all but 4 departments, their states will be none to happy to lose thousands of jobs - which of course, none have thought of the natural consequences of their actions. They haven't a clue.
I cannot help but wonder if the Texas textbook fiasco has poisoned the voting pool thru its emphasis on hate and ignorance of actual history.
after reading that brilliant political scenario, I did not find any reason to read anything this sage has to say about anything....
Besides, the comment is "IF candidates LIKE O'Donnell are elected", not "when O"Donnell is elected". He's using a rhetorical device of comparison to make his point, which is that extreme candidates like O'Donnell are having some influence in the political sphere these days, and that some of them will be elected, if not O'Donnell herself. I don't think he's wrong, much as I dislike it. I doubt that Mitchell is saying that O'Donnell actually will win. He can read polls just as well as you or I.
But SOME baggers like her will win.... and I don't think that this Teabagger thing is going to prove useful for Republicans for very long. It will eventually force them to really start governing and solving serious problems with realistic solutions (that run contrary to their electoral rhetoric) rather than cheaply inciting hate and fear in white people. When their new snake-oil remedies prove to be the same old snake-oil remedies they've had for 40 years or more, they will lose big in 2012. This will probably be only a short-term blip of a gain for Republicans. That was Mitchell's point.
I would not bet on the people realizing they voted somebody who is against their own interest.
The voters who are supporting the tea party lunatic have an habit of doing so. They have voted against their own interest forever and will keep doing so. No amount of
facts or reality will change that.
In short, I would rather not to have to find out. Better be safe and make sure we elect democrats.
Despite their talk of bankrupting the future, what they really care about is putting the greatest amount of money into the fewest hands as fast as they can. They will keep doing that and feeding off mis-placed voter anger until there is no wealth left to transfer to themselves and their friends.
Two things I will never forget about George W. Bush.
1. While governor, he laughed about the prospect of executing an inmate (something I'm sure God will take up with him)
2. Being happy to be around "his type of people". Here I thought, as President, that all American citizens should be his type of people instead of a rich few.
These two things should speak volumes to everyone especially when taken together. This is the true face of the Republican Party and what it stands for.