In Praise of New Republican Leadership
There is John McCain, the Republicans' failed presidential candidate, as incapable since the election as he was before. There is John Boehner, the party's leader in the House and Ohio's own George Hamilton (the tan, not the affair with his stepmother when he was 12). We now also have Michael "Drill Baby Drill" Steele, the party's inspiration-challenged chairman, who is supposed to lead the GOP back to victory despite his own electoral incompetence. And Eric Cantor, the party's shiny new star who idolizes Newt Gingrich, presumably for shutting down the government in an ego-driven tizzy, not for leaving his cancer-ridden first wife or dumping his second one for a Congressional aide 23 years his junior.
With the kind of inept leadership that would make even Merrill Lynch shudder, the Republican Party has nowhere to go but down, even though, at 19% approval, there is not much of a cushion left. More worrisome for Republicans are their recruiting prospects: if you were, say, a bright young thing in your 20s or 30s, would you rather hitch yourself to Mitch McConnell's star or Barack Obama's? Is there anything that the Republicans have said or done in the past few months that would inspire anyone who has a choice to join their crusade to nowhere? Do you know anyone who proudly supports the GOP? Actually, do you know anyone who understands what the GOP is even about?
And that is precisely the problem: there is so little substance to the Republican Party that, like Citibank, it would wither into oblivion before merging with, say, the Alaska Independence Party, were it not too big to fail. The US electoral system is rigged so that no matter how much it deserves to disappear, the Republican Party will be propped up. It has been so for over 150 years, and is likely to remain so for another 150,000. And so we are stuck with them. This is sad because we do deserve a spirited, intelligent debate about the ominous issues that face the country and the world. Forget even about solutions to the economic crisis or any kind of practical positions on anything of importance, Republicans are unable to begin to articulate the underlying values justifying their existence. And no, "lowering taxes" and "defending traditional marriage" are NOT philosophies. The former is, at best, a means to an end, and the latter a short-term tactic.
Perhaps Republicans were inspired by Obama's enchantingly vague promises of hope and change, not realizing that behind them was a solid set of beliefs in the role of government, and a deep understanding of the American experience. The lack of foundation of the Republican Party is a bigger problem than many of us realize because it means there is no constructive opposition and, thus, little discussion of any value. A number of people are dubious about the success of the stimulus package and would have liked to see arguments from both sides about the consequences of spending close to $1 trillion, or of doing nothing. But with a moribund, intellectually lazy Republican Party, we heard little more than sniping about an earmark here and there, and a fetishistic mantra about lower taxes. What we would like to hear is what role the GOP sees for the government in a crisis of this magnitude, and what role the government could have played to prevent it. It's that simple, and until Republicans can develop coherent answers to such basic questions, they will not regain power.
For eight years, the GOP has been an ugly knot of extreme contradictions, unable to find even the slightest thread of consistency in policies that called for financial rigor but grew public spending to record levels; resisted "nation-building," but drained $25,000 from each American household to attempt to recreate a country 6,000 miles away; wanted the government out of our lives, but proceeded to try to control our conversations, our relationships and our bodies. This utter fiasco is now described by party leaders as a time during which the GOP "lost its way." America is the land of endless redemption, normally a reasonably healthy process, but right now the salvation thing is over the top: from Republican leaders to Wall Street bankers to auto industry executives, everyone seems to realize that they had "lost their way," and that this new consciousness is enough to lead them back to the righteous path. No, it's not: they are all corrupt losers who need to be replaced and sent into internal exile, or worse. It goes without saying that we need new leadership in banking and industry (and perhaps compensation caps will achieve that), but we also need strong, smart, new leadership in the GOP, no matter how much we enjoy the prospect of another Republican electoral disaster in 2010. Without an adequate opposition, there is a noxious lack of rational debate, and endless risks to the democratic process. Also, it's not fun: do we really want to be the basketball team that won 100 to 0?
Loading comments…
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
"there is so little substance to the Republican Party"
Oh, I'm not disagreeing. But that doesn't mean that there IS substance to the Democratic Party, just because they hold power. And therein lies the problem.
Given the chronic ADD of the electorate and the average IQ, 19% could easily become 91% particularly if the economy doesn't pick up.
We don't need the Republican Party. If it goes the way of the Whigs, we will have a two major parties again within four years, either by a schism in the Democratic Party or by the rise to prominence of a new party that gets the support of most currently-Republican constituencies (both at the level of voters and at the level of donors/volunteers).
The Republicans are so morally and intellectually bankrupt that it's better to start from a clean slate. They have stood for some good things, from Lincoln to about Eisenhower or so, but with the Southern Strategy and the Tax Cut Strategy (run up the deficit, take credit for the tax cuts and the spending, and leave the Democrats to take the blame for the spending and the tax increases when the bills come due), they made a set of commitments that would not let them be honest. They have lived with those commitments, and the implicit belief that winning is everything, for so long that they're not worth saving.
Better hope for the Dem schism then, because the power systems in this country (corporate, governmental, and otherwise) are built on a rich-get-richer model that intentionally screws the little guy. Whether the little guy be a small alternative energy company trying to compete against big oil or a forward-thinking grassroots movement trying to establish itself as a legitimate political party, the big guys have a vested interest in locking the little guys out of the process. And since the big guys are the ones with the money, you can bet they're going to get their way.
That's the biggest problem with capitalism for capitalism's sake--it doesn't matter who's right, only who's rich.
If you want a multiparty system, move to Canada, or better yet Europe.
We may "need" strong, smart new leadership from the Greedy Obstruction Party, but too bad. There isn't any. And after the mini Dark Age of Bush, I could stand a couple of quarters of being the team winning 100 to 0.
Excellent article, Mr. Jenkins. I agree with you 100%.
The only hope for the Republican party is an ideological move toward the House of Representatives' Blue Dog Coalition wing of the Democratic party. Blue Dogs, for the uninformed, are moderate to conservative Democrats noted especially for their fiscal conservatism principles, but more liberal leaning social philosophy.
In 2007 the Green Party had over 200 elected officials in municipal roles within the U.S. but no national candidates to date. The Green Party generally leans left and segues in many regards with the Democrat Party. Obama is very green in his environmental policies, so the Green Party has an opportunity, unavailable during the anti-environmental administration of the past eight years, to add value to the discussions of environmental/economic policies going forward. If they desire to step forward into the vacuum created by the imploding GOP, now is their chance.
Why don't people remember that Reagan, Bush's 1&2 created more national deficits than all other presidents combined? Didn't Cheney remind us that "Reagan proved deficits do not matter"? As that are the facts why do they now talk about "generational theft"? Obama will raise defits on his watch but that will be to right the wrong of the Bush recession.
"but drained $25,000 from each American household to attempt to recreate a country 6,000 miles away"
I object to this statement. Not out of any support for the Iraq war, but rather out of basic opposition to what this statement represents: an unequivocal surrender to the Republican/Blue Dog argument that the national debt is something that burdens every single taxpayer in America with 'their share.' That's not how the debt works, it's a faulty premise based on the notion that a nation must pay its debts in full.
The idea behind a credit based economy is not that a nation borrows and then pays off its debts, it is the idea that a web of debt interrelations between nations make those nations closer and links their interests. A country pays the interest on its debts to maintain its credit, and it periodically pays its debt down in periods of prosperity to keep it under control. The failure of the Bush administration to do just that, and instead squander a budget surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and two wars (combined with two expensive and broken domestic spending programs, 'No Child Left Behind' and the Medicare Prescription Drug 'Benefit') that put us in a perilous situation where the consequences of deregulation could be so suddenly and totally ghastly.
But every household doesn't owe 'it's share' of the debt, and repeating that conservative trope is pernicious.
BUT, we will eventually have to reconcile that debt to some extent. And that will come from tax revenue. I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's an extra "$25,000" out of each household, but it IS $25,000 that could go to MUCH more worthy causes than debt reduction.
In a word to your last sentence. YES!!!!!
Yes, it would be nice to have a reasonable counterpoint to Democratic positions and smart debate on important issues. But don't look to the modern GOP for intelligent discourse. Every house must have a foundation to stand, and unfortunately the GOP's house is built on a foundation of wingnuts. The GOP's strategy of courting religious fundamentalists and hard right, fringe economic conservatives to fill the cheap seats in the party's tent was too successful for its own good. The party is now controlled by hard right ideologues who treat every deviation from the party line as heresy. The party's economic agenda is limited to three items: deep tax cuts, abolition of social programs, and deregulation of industry. These positions remain the same regardless of any change in the economic condition of the country. If the US was in the throes a depression and unemployment was 25%, the GOP would still be calling for tax cuts. The GOP's own rigid ideology prevents it from offering any creative solutions or innovative ideas. Serious intelligent debate can only be found within the different factions of the Democratic party, or at the state level where Republican lawmakers still have to deal with the real world.
I agree. They are so blinded by ideology that they can't see that their policy and electoral failures mean they will be marginalized and cut out of reasonable efforts to forge solutions to our problems. You say, accurately, that their house is "build on a foundation of wingnuts." But I agree but if I were a Republican I'd want someone to recognize that this is a shaky foundation to rely on .
The proposition that the federal government is too big was just displayed for all to see. I cannot relent on that point of basic belief that I have. Let's see, the proposition that all people should take care of themselves and their families and loved ones and not depend, and the word is depend, on the government. I cannot give that one up either. Tax cuts let people keep what they earn, yes I'm for that. Abolition of social programs, No, I'm not for that, but we can scale them back, there is waste and fraud. Deregulation of industries, yes when the cost of government interference starts to take to great a toll on the industry.
I respect your point of view. I don't think anyone is against personal responsibility and self-reliance and, as much as talking heads would like you to believe otherwise, there are plenty of Dems who do not want the government to reward irresponsible behavior. Similarly, there's plenty of support for cutting waste and fraud, and making sure that dollars go to those who are genuinely in need and without other options. Similarly, I think most Dems support REASONABLE regulation that is designed to prevent fraud and abuse and ensure public safety, and that accomplishes those ends by the least instrusive means necessary. The problem with the modern GOP is that they have a knee jerk reaction against ANY regulation, and a predisposition to tax cuts that borders on the pathological. Tax cuts can be a good thing, but they should be considered in the context of the country's circumstances as a whole. Just as you may see government spending on infrastructure repair and modernization as wasteful, we think Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% were irresponsible at a time when the country was fighting two expensive wars.
The repubs wanted the tax cuts, but didn't have the spine to cut services, so they borrowed like mad. You can't have it both ways and the bankruptcy of this strategy has brough the nation to ruin. Now we have to pick up their mess. They should go the way of the Whigs.
so what did the obama admin do in it's first weeks, it did the same thing, but on an even grander scale, so you must think that this will lead to an even bigger mess.
I don't much disagree with this article even though it skirts the real threat to democrats: Ron Paul and his grand Revolution.
I guess when you have a GOP member for liberty and freedom, the Founding Fathers, friendly relationships with other nations, AND limited government, its best not to talk about him.
When the democrats are through driving the nation into the financial ditch (perhaps with a good dose of anarchy or chaos) there will be one man standing tall: Ron Paul and/or his legacy (which will never die out no matter how hard the intolerant left is about talk radio).
The Libertarians are furious with the totalitarian money grabbing democrats. They will NEVER forgive them for the power grab of this new Stimulus bill. They are ready to rumble. That is prima facie evidence that its the democrat party that will ultimately die off.
hooking your star to Ron Paul eh- good luck with that
the lesson you should have learned over the last 8 years is that people who think govenrment power is fundamentally a bad thing, should not be placed in positions of government power
yeah, that's why Ron Paul is speaking at the Republican convention this month.
The Libertarians are handicapped by the fact that their ideology does not make any allowances for pragmatism. I'm all in favor of repealing seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and ending the drug war and very much approve of the notion of social Libertarianism... the idea that nothing should be illegal unless it needs to be illegal.
I reject, however, the idea that no government is the best government. In the absence of government, corporations assume dictatorial powers. Government is necessary to regulate business and a free, educated populace is necessary to regulate government. Monetarism and Austrian School anarcho-capitalism lead to fascism, as corporations assume control of what government remains and increase its size to benefit them.
This is why, despite most people agreeing with something that Libertarians espouse, the party is relatively small and powerless. There is, ultimately, no difference between them and conservative Republicans despite the attractive ideology of libertarianism.
They have proved it, twice, by nominating right wing Republicans for presidents based on their economic libertarianism in rejection of their own party's platform of social libertarianism. Ron Paul and Bob Barr are against abortion, gay rights, and oppose government protection of civil rights... despite the Libertarian party's espousal of pro-choice, gay rights, and civil rights positions.
The main dysfunction of the libertarian agenda is they promote personal freedoms but are against choice, gay rights, legalization, and civil rights. In other words, freedom to do what we say you should do. Very few people fall for this ruse and the ones that do are generally mouth breathing Republicans who are mad at the GOP for some reason. Not a party, never will be.
Eclectic Radical
I also reject the idea that no governement is best government, because I'm a conservative. My point is that when libertarians are forced to choose between the lesser of the two evils (according to them) they cannot STAND the totalitarian socialist democrats whatsoever. This confirms what REPUBLICANS think about democrats. My point is that there are people (Libertarians) so deeply devoted to freedom, that they cannot tolerate the liberty hating, Constitutional trampling democrats.
To say that George Bush is a right winger is to misunderstand the meaning of the term. Bush is a Rockefeller republican, which is by definition, LEFTIST. What you don't realize is how much he did on YOUR behalf delivering to your side everything needed to gain congress and the presidency. He wanted this to happen because he is a leftist and he had a mission: to destroy every last vestige of conservatism in the GOP. The RNC even went after Ron Paul's popular seat in Congress to remove him for office. It was the RNC and Bush who made sure Arlan Specter got the nod from the party (instead of the more conservative candidate). The leftist wing of the GOP is still portraying itself as the Conservatives. But true conservatives are LEAVING the party (Pat Buchanan).
(con't)
Eclectic Radical
(con't)
Bush was in Iraq and overseas according to the Truman Doctrine!. He completely subscribes to it. His drug benefit program is socialist. His support of No Child Left Behind is fully leftist (true right wingers are OPPOSED to the feds being in education). I could go on at lenght about the flaming leftist, George Bush. The only reason the democrats DIDN'T embrace all his leftist policies and drove them insane over them is because he had an R after his name.
We absolutely would benefit from a smart, rational opposition, but I fail to see why this has to be the GOP. Their party is a moral and amoral mess. A fallen house of cards.
For everything they say they stand for, they do the complete opposite. With one notable exception. The rich have gotten far richer in their "free market" ponzi scheme, so I suppose you could consider that their one great success.
Yep, you're probably right. Unless we the sheeple awaken, the repubs and dems will be the only major parties for decades to come. After all they've both long colluded to stay in power by greedily hanging onto the electoral college. In the process both factions sold out and are now bought and paid for by Big Money Lobby. And when the chips are down they hold fast to each other because of their vital need to hold on to the electoral college. Without the electoral college the USA may have long ago rid itself of both factions, repubs and dems of the one Corporate Party, created a sane form of capitalism based upon the philosophies of Adam Smith and David Hume, and morphed into a social democratic society structure mainly for the working men and women who actually built this nation.
Hey Ralph? It's not an election year yet. So go back to your dreamland.
This is a good post to start bashing the GOP with but this article could be used in a mad-lib game. Just replace republican with dem and replace GWB with the democratic president of your choice.
I don't know why their is so much vitral against the GOP. I know they pulled a bunch of crap over the last few years but we are starting the same dance just with new partners. It never works when one side gets everything they want.
So you believe its right to bash Democrats through deception but wrong to bash the GOP with hard facts. The GOP has become a corrupt and destructive party that does not serve the national good. They seem to have devolved into nothing more than elected lobbyists for big corporations. They have no interest in what is good for America as a whole. They sit on the side of STUPID while America deserves SMART government. Intelligent honest dialogue with constructive ideas is needed in Congress and Republicans are either incapable of such or unwilling to do so.
I didn't say it is wrong to bash either. It is just amusing to me that I keep hearing the same arguments from both sides. For every fact the Dems come up with I can jump over to FR and hear a fact going the other way.
Every time the GOP's do their talking robot schtick about "lowering taxes" as a way to stimulate the economy (which economists and experience tell us DOES NOT WORK), I feel like screaming at the TV. I have wondered for a long time why uninformed, uncurious, and revisionist-history dimwits get an equal say at the table. I am all for dialogue and debate. There is none. I don't know how Obama keeps his temper in check, or keeps a straight face, when faced with "opposition" from one of these old repubs. It's incredible that they really believe they have something to add to the debate. If they had any dignity at all, they would just shut up until they had something constructive to say. The GOP stands for intolerance, lack of education and information (that would be elitist); hate (remember Palin's rallies?); and theocracy (where religious belief/faith trumps facts every time). I am tired of giving them equal time. Thank you for expressing my thoughts so clearly. We need an intelligent debate in politics and we do not have it.
exactly right
Ahhh, what a load! Another spineless democrat rise's to its hind legs and bays at the moon!
Equating the Republicans with Democrats is as senseless as equating Guavas with Bycycles.
well, if GW hadn't ruined everything, perhaps the people wouldn't be so desperate for...ANYTHING ELSE!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
