dagblog - Comments for "Colorado Primaries: For Whom the Bullhorn Tolls"

I think I was arguing that

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:32:31 +0000

In reply to I think I was arguing that

I think I was arguing that you missed the point

Alternatively, I could be arguing a different point. :)

I'm taking the long view. This election is not the start of an downward spiral to right-wing extremism. The spiral started in the 1970s. We're already at least halfway down.

In the short term, you're right that a Republican victory may pressure the GOP to moderate somewhat, but there is a counterforce pushing the GOP to the right that began blowing long before than this election cycle and will keep blowing long after. That's why we've consistently seen Republican leaders turn right when the conventional political wisdom says to go left.

Your Dole example is telling. His lackluster presidential campaign was the moderate Republicans' last gasp. There was a pitched battle at the GOP convention between moderates and conservatives, but despite the fact that the moderate Dole was the putative head of the party, the conservatives carried the day in nearly every battle. "I do have a lot of friends who are leaving the party or who have left," said Monta Huber, a state secretary for the moderate California Republican League. "It's a little scary and very sad. But I am an optimist. I think eventually people will start to understand more. It will become more and more evident what is going on. Eventually the good always wins out. They may win the battle, but we will win the war."

But they lost the war. Trent Lott replaced Dole in 1997, and GOP never looked back. The moderates are now all but extinct. They lost control of the party in primaries and elections just like the ones we're having this year. Bob Bennett is not significant in and of himself. His loss is simply a symbol of how far the Republican party--in Utah especially--has gone to the extreme.

Thus, whether Boehner and other Republican leaders moderate somewhat next year is irrelevent in the long run. Back in the 1970s, Boehner would have been considered a far-right radical without a shot of leading the party. In the future, he could be considered too liberal to lead the GOP. That's what I'm concerned about.

I think I was arguing that

Steve — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:33:53 +0000

In reply to It won't be the freshmen who

I think I was arguing that you missed the point, so I guess I agree that you weren't talking about how much government gets done. We part ways with respect to what we believe will happen after the likely Republican mid-term victory. It sounds to me like you believe that would be the start of a sort of GOP rightward death spiral. I was simply arguing that, when we were in an extraordinarily similar situation in 1994, this was not the result - instead, having been invested with the power to do more than simply obstruct the Democratic agenda, the GOP was forced to cooperate with Clinton to demonstrate that once elected, they could govern. Hence, how much government will get done is exactly the point.

In this environment, the power of extremists is dampened, because their agenda is no longer congruent with the path to re-election. So it's more likely that extremism will wither (e.g., Bob Dole pleading "where's the outrage?!" just two years after the Gingrich revoultion) rather than flourish. You might even argue that extremism is on the rise today simply because fomenting it is a wise strategy for a party that is completely relegated to the minority in terms of support from the general population.

As for Bob Bennett - pointing out how an extremely conservative senator will be replaced by a slightly more extreme conservative senator doesn't strike me as particularly compelling evidence that the end is near. It's Utah, man.

It won't be the freshmen who

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:56:16 +0000

In reply to A charismatic young president

It won't be the freshmen who will the deals. It will be the folks who have already been happily killing deals for the past 2 years--Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Club for Growth, etc. GOP incumbents aren't just losing because they're incumbents. They're losing because the right wing has branded them traitors. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), for example, has received top conservative ratings from the NRA, Right to Life, the American Conservative Union, and other conservative groups. But he voted for TARP in 2008, and he floated a health care compromise in 2009. As a result, the Club for Growth funded a campaign against him, and the Tea Party folks started callhing him "Bailout Bob." And that was the end of Sen. Bennett's career. The GOP has become so subordinate to private sector ideologues that its members can no longer affort to compromise.

But whether the government gets more or less done in the next two years wasn't my point. We are in this situation where the minority party refuses to work with the majority precisely because of the rise of extremists. The more power they have, the more poorly the U.S. government will function. Even if Boehner manages to press the party into a compromising position for two years, it can easily go bad again in 2012 or 2014 or 2020.

A charismatic young president

Steve — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:55:29 +0000

In reply to Colorado Primaries: For Whom the Bullhorn Tolls

A charismatic young president is swept into office by hopeful progressives and independents who'd lost faith in the Bush presidency. Two years later, the public is outraged by, among other things, his health care reform plan, economic stimulus policies, attempt to allow gays to serve in the military and plans for a carbon tax.

That would be Bill Clinton. The result? A wave of legislative compromises (e.g. welfare reform), generally regarded as moderate and reasonable steps forward. Why? Because the Republicans' newly acquired electoral mandate and parliamentary power required them to do something to prove that voting for them accomplishe anything. They couldn't simply deliver obstruction and expect to get re-elected, particularly with a president who was still surprisingly popular relative to the national mood (say, like, Mr. Obama is today). Obama is just as likely as Clinton to triangulate to the same position (calling Dick Morris!). He will finally have some leverage with which to say no to the Democratic old bulls, which I for one will welcome wholeheartedly.

A power shift in Congress may not be great for "give me the public option or give me death" brand progressivism, but it just might give Republicans enough skin in the game to get some work done, which is what the independents that will power both of them want anyway.

The far-right is peripheral to all of this. They won't influence that dealmaking - they'll be freshmen with minimal influence. And long-term if they last long enough to make a real difference, it will be because they gave up on the radical ideology.

Or they are from South Carolina. Or Oklahoma...

Just to counter the often

Atheist — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:02:51 +0000

In reply to Colorado Primaries: For Whom the Bullhorn Tolls

Just to counter the often touted lament about America careening ever rightward, I'd like to posit a few counter-examples: a continuing increase in the number and acceptance of interracial couples, a slow but steady increase in accepting homosexuals as human beings, a very slow, not as steady, but mostly consistent increase in accepting climate change as real and man-made.

Things are not all bleak.

I agree that there is a deep

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:18:12 +0000

In reply to You're right. Giddy from the

I agree that there is a deep sea of something that extends far beyond today's economic recession, but I don't think that it's made of stupid. Stupid is a constant. Every society has stupid. Social movements are driven by more fluid forces--fear, desire, joy, and hate.

I also believe that the paranoia is much more responsive to external pressure than you suggest, and it can collapse like a punctured balloon under the right conditions--as happened during the Red Scare and other previous bouts of political hysteria. But someone has to apply the pressure, and there's the rub.

You're right. Giddy from the

acanuck — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:16:03 +0000

In reply to Colorado Primaries: For Whom the Bullhorn Tolls

You're right. Giddy from the smell of blood (and oil) in the water, many on the far right are over-reaching this year. But much as they would deny it, a process of natural selection will simply weed out the electorally incompetent. A few more election cycles, and you've got a coterie of savvy (though crazy) incumbents. Then they'll be a bloc that even the Democrats will have to at least placate in framing any legislation.

As you say, the liberal Republicans are gone, the moderates are down to three -- Snowe, Collins and Brown -- and now the crazies are out to purge the few remaining sane conservatives as well. The new McCain is reduced to railing against everything the old McCain stood for. On the bright side, they've handed the Dems super-electable Charlie Crist on a platter.

I cringe when I look ahead to where the U.S. is going. The crazy may be froth tossed up by the current economic storm, but it's pretty clear it's floating on a deep sea of stupid. Crazy you can argue successfully against, but stupid is impossible to counter. I feel your pain, up here in my bunker.