The historical memory of the 20th century has in many ways left us ill-prepared for 21st century threats to democracy. Most people hear "authoritarianism" and think of Hitler and Stalin, one party states, and concentration camps. For this reason anything short of those totalitarian scenarios isn't taken seriously enough. Modern day "soft" authoritarians know this and act accordingly.
Take the Republican Party. From 1992 to the present it has won the plurality of the popular vote in the presidential election only once, in 2004 with the benefit of incumbency. Despite that, a Republican has held the office for three terms in that period. This has been enabled by the electoral college. When Republicans have held the White House they have used their positions to flood the federal bench with young ideologues, altering the interpretation of the law for decades in a direction that is not popular. When Republicans do not hold the White House they do everything they can to deny Democratic presidents their nominees.
Republicans also use gerrymandering and voter suppression to maintain their position despite being unpopular. In Wisconsin a majority voted for Democrats for the state legislature, but gerrymandering produced a majority of Republicans in both houses. That legislature then stripped powers from the newly elected Democratic governor. In multiple states, including my home state of Nebraska, Republican legislators have refused to honor ballot initiatives where clear majorities of voters opted to expand Medicaid.
In this regard Trump is not an outlier, but a regular Republican. As president he has used executive orders to target Muslim immigrants, throw children in prison camps, and fund a border wall without Congressional approval. According to recent reports, Trump is demanding that land be confiscated for his wall, and is dangling pardons for any underlings who fear legal prosecution. By outsourcing work to Fox News, Trump does not appear to have a state-run propaganda machine, but Fox basically fulfills that function.
Fellow nationalist Boris Johnson has also figured out the tricks of soft authoritarianism. He maneuvered to have Theresa May stabbed in the back, able to become prime minister without having to win an election. Johnson, who does not have majority support, has also moved to prorogue parliament in order to force the UK into a very unpopular no-deal Brexit. He is essentially preventing the people from having any kind of voice in the matter.
Because neither Trump nor Johnson are putting tanks in the streets or arresting their opponents, most regular people do not see this as authoritarianism, but it is. It is a smarter authoritarianism attuned to the fact that overt moves to grab power by force won't fly in this day and age. The memory of the last century is a big reason why. However, that memory serves us poorly because we are stuck fighting the last war. Unless we oppose this soft authoritarianism with the vigor it deserves, it won't stay soft much longer.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Friday, June 3, 2016
A Plea To My Republican Friends and Family Members
I understand that we differ in our politics. I understand that you may really dislike Hillary Clinton. But I beg and implore you NOT to vote for Donald Trump in the general election.
Although I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I never would have asked you not to vote for McCain or Romney because as much as I disagreed with them, I at least thought they were legitimate candidates for the presidency. Look, you don't have to vote for Clinton, you can go third party if you wish. Heck, I did that in 1996 and 2000 after being disgusted by the equivocating and conservatism lite of the Clinton-Gore administration. And I am not asking you not to vote for Republicans further down the ballot, as much as I may dislike them.
Trump is a special case. This is a man who has openly inflamed hatred against immigrants and Muslims. He has introduced notions once considered outside of the pale in our politics to the mainstream. He is instinctively authoritarian, and doesn't seem to have much interest in the First Amendment or the judiciary if those things can be used against him. He is also massively unqualified to be president, from his childish temper tantrums to his complete lack of experience in public office to his complete ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. He represents a danger to this country.
Although I disagree with your politics, I know you, my Republican friends and family, to be fundamentally decent people. Why give your vote to a man of such indecency? Many of you are devout Christians, but here is a man who is as opposite of Christ as you could find, from his spewing of hate to his celebration of crass materialism. If he was just a random someone who lived in your town you'd probably really dislike him, and judge him negatively for his two divorces to boot. Anything he has said about religion and "values" has been lip service, anyway. Do you really want to be played like that?
Some of you are in the business world. I've heard you complain of companies that use the justice system in frivolous lawsuits to shake you down for money, something Trump is known for. Would you do business with someone who has such a rash of bankruptcies? I even know one of you has had business dealings with Trump and you have spoken negatively about it in years past. Are you now going to give your vote to a man that you would not trust enough to do business with?
A lot of you are women. Are you really going to go out and give your vote to a man who has a long history of treating women with disrespect? A man who seems to regard women as some lesser form of life? I know you are strong women, why would you openly support a man who seems to have an insane hatred of strong women?
Knowing that many of you might be willing to vote for a man who appears to be against who you are as people and what you stand for, I am sad and disturbed. Just because he is the nominee of the party you vote for doesn't mean that he should automatically get your vote. Just because the likes of Rubio and Ryan have shown themselves to be abject cowards does not mean that you ought to follow their path.
You should know, last of all, that if you do vote for this man come November, I will indeed question my assumptions of your decency, morality, and strong womanhood, so be prepared. You cannot claim to be those things and be a Trump supporter.
Although I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I never would have asked you not to vote for McCain or Romney because as much as I disagreed with them, I at least thought they were legitimate candidates for the presidency. Look, you don't have to vote for Clinton, you can go third party if you wish. Heck, I did that in 1996 and 2000 after being disgusted by the equivocating and conservatism lite of the Clinton-Gore administration. And I am not asking you not to vote for Republicans further down the ballot, as much as I may dislike them.
Trump is a special case. This is a man who has openly inflamed hatred against immigrants and Muslims. He has introduced notions once considered outside of the pale in our politics to the mainstream. He is instinctively authoritarian, and doesn't seem to have much interest in the First Amendment or the judiciary if those things can be used against him. He is also massively unqualified to be president, from his childish temper tantrums to his complete lack of experience in public office to his complete ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. He represents a danger to this country.
Although I disagree with your politics, I know you, my Republican friends and family, to be fundamentally decent people. Why give your vote to a man of such indecency? Many of you are devout Christians, but here is a man who is as opposite of Christ as you could find, from his spewing of hate to his celebration of crass materialism. If he was just a random someone who lived in your town you'd probably really dislike him, and judge him negatively for his two divorces to boot. Anything he has said about religion and "values" has been lip service, anyway. Do you really want to be played like that?
Some of you are in the business world. I've heard you complain of companies that use the justice system in frivolous lawsuits to shake you down for money, something Trump is known for. Would you do business with someone who has such a rash of bankruptcies? I even know one of you has had business dealings with Trump and you have spoken negatively about it in years past. Are you now going to give your vote to a man that you would not trust enough to do business with?
A lot of you are women. Are you really going to go out and give your vote to a man who has a long history of treating women with disrespect? A man who seems to regard women as some lesser form of life? I know you are strong women, why would you openly support a man who seems to have an insane hatred of strong women?
Knowing that many of you might be willing to vote for a man who appears to be against who you are as people and what you stand for, I am sad and disturbed. Just because he is the nominee of the party you vote for doesn't mean that he should automatically get your vote. Just because the likes of Rubio and Ryan have shown themselves to be abject cowards does not mean that you ought to follow their path.
You should know, last of all, that if you do vote for this man come November, I will indeed question my assumptions of your decency, morality, and strong womanhood, so be prepared. You cannot claim to be those things and be a Trump supporter.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
The Spoiled Children Caucus
Two days ago, as my twin daughters had simultaneous toddler meltdowns, I had a eureka moment: the so-called Freedom Caucus is using the same tactics as my three years olds. While my daughters' meltdowns can be annoying and even upsetting, I understand that they are part of growing up, and that they are gradually learning how to deal with their frustration in a more mature manner.
Evidently a lot of conservatives never made it through this stage in life, since they have been pitching a constant fit for the last month over the House leadership crisis and debt ceiling. They got Boehner out, kept his chosen successor (McCarthy) from taking his spot, and demanded that whoever filled the Speakership take the nation hostage once again by demanding massive budget cuts or else risk default. This is exactly what happens when weak parents give in to toddlers. The little tykes soon get drunk on their own power once they realize that if they pitch their wails high and loud enough that mom and dad will do anything for them if it just shuts them up.
Suddenly, the adults decided they had enough. Paul Ryan (admittedly a hard Right conservative) refused to agree to many of the Freedom Caucus' demands and was not barred from being Speaker. Then, this week, Boehner dropped the bombshell that he had negotiated a compromise with Democrats that would raise the debt limit until 2017, effectively postponing any new hostage crisis until the next presidential administration. The Spoiled Children Caucus (my name for them) has been apoplectic, kicking the floor and screaming like one of my daughters when I've denied her a second cookie. They never seemed to have realized that if Boehner was on his way out he could make a deal because he literally had nothing left to lose. '
The budget deal has passed the House without a majority of Republican support. (That's right, a majority of House Republicans are willing to risk a national default to force through policies that the country doesn't want.) In the Senate, Rand Paul has pledged a filibuster, and Jeff Sessions has threatened to hold it up in committee. Yes, these men would like to stand athwart the majority of both houses of Congress and potentially send the country into default because they don't like the compromise. What's crazy is that the compromise gives them what they want. All of the cuts come from health and social welfare spending. Republicans will not have to sacrifice a damn thing, except for their overweening pride.
At some level, all of this has nothing to do with policy. The Spoiled Children Caucus is obsessed with destroying the authority of the president. They want nothing more than to force him to be bent to their will. (There's a lot of racial and gender dynamics to this that I don't have time to talk about now, but hopefully will be able to address soon.) Yet again, they have failed to do so, and like toddlers who want their parents to obey their will, are screaming and crying about it. By postponing the debt ceiling issue until Obama has left office, Boehner has enraged the hard Right because they will never again be able to use their weapon of choice in their empty quest.
While it is fun to mock these adult toddlers, the effects of their tantrums are deadly serious. Just as my daughters' morning meltdowns make eating breakfast almost impossible, the congressional brats make governing impossible by constantly sabotaging any attempt at compromise. Unfortunately for the nation, dealing with adult children is harder than managing actual toddlers. At the end of the day, my daughters love me and I love them, and that mutual affection helps us pull though. The contempt that the parties feel for each other today means that only two solutions are possible. Either moderate Republicans have to be willing to risk their political careers for the good of the nation, or Democrats are going to have to win supermajorities in both houses. Neither solution seems likely, so while the Spoiled Children Caucus may very well now be at bay, it's not going anywhere.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Nationalism and the 14th Amendment
The diverse nation envisioned by Thomas Nast in the late 1860s after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Today's Republicans aren't in favor of it.
I wrote last week about how Donald Trump, like Ronald Reagan before him, has managed to harness the power of political nationalism, a force that Americans refuse to name, but which has had major effects on the political order throughout this country's history. Predictably, now that Trump has shot to the front of the ranks by espousing nativism and ginning the dark forces of white racial resentment, the lesser lights competing against him have followed suit.
Scott Walker and Chris Christie, both corporate conservatives who appeal to the Koch brothers rather than the talk radio crowd, have questioned birthright citizenship. In case you didn't know, that principle is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, a document that conservatives love to use as a defense of their policies, whether it agrees with them or not. That amendment is perhaps the most radical in the Constitution. Unlike the original Bill of Rights, it was not derived from pre-existing traditions in English common law. As radical as abolition of slavery was, by the time the 13th Amendment was passed, it was already a fact on the ground. The 15th is very radical in granting universal male suffrage, regardless of color or race, but it is merely following in the spirit of the 14th.
The 14th Amendment essentially says that all people born in America are citizens (regardless of race or color,) and that their citizenship is universal and may not be violated. By "universal" I mean that they maintain the same rights no matter what state that they live in. Those who crow about "states rights" essentially want to have the power to violate the rights of people they don't like in the areas that they control. Conservatives in many states have been fighting hard in recent years to do this, from strict voter ID laws to "show me your papers laws" to refusing to comply with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. As we all should know, the 14th Amendment was not used to maintain universal citizenship after Reconstruction, when the imposition of Jim and Jane Crow was given the blessing of the Supreme Court. It has only really held force, like the 15th Amendment, in the last fifty years or so, and has been the key factor in the victory of so many civil rights cases.
As it was originally constructed, the 14th Amendment's universal citizenship was a radical break from pre-Civil War America, and motivated by a kind of nationalism. It was a progressive nationalism, one that gave all Americans, regardless to what state they lived in, equal citizenship. The nationalism of the Republican party today could not be more different from the one that animated the likes of Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner. It is at base a racialized nationalism whereby whites are to maintain a privileged position with the help of the state. (It is ironic that the party of Union has become the party of Confederate values.) By ending birthright citizenship, the Republicans would effectively be creating different legal categories of people, some enfranchised, others not. This certainly fits with their support of harsh voter ID laws and tendency to support state-level laws that keep former felons from ever voting again.
The fact that business-oriented conservatives like Christie and Walker are going down this road is a sign that Republican party is increasingly a vehicle for Herrenvolk nationalism, and is no longer bothering to hide it. This strategy will either result in a victory too terrible to contemplate, or political suicide in a changing nation.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
My GOP Debate Hot Take
"Well you're a waste of space..."
Plenty of half-wit shysters are throwing their half-baked hot takes out into cyberspace tonight, so I figured, why not me?
I actually managed to finish watching the whole damn thing, with much aid from beer and tequila. That was the only way to swim against the tide of bullshit while keeping my sanity intact. Plenty of other people will be talking about who "won," but that's not my concern here. Instead, I'd like to get into what the debate says more broadly about the Republican party.
In the first place, it shows the centrality of Fox News to the GOP, to the point that by cutting off the debate at ten according to their own criteria, Fox was allowed to essentially be the gatekeeper in this election. Watching the debate it was also obvious that Trump was getting questions not about the issues, but about himself, questions obviously intended to undermine him. Fox seems desperate, like the GOP leadership, to make him just go away.
The debate also illustrated quite a bit about the Republican party line, and the positions one must hold to be a contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Here, in no particular order, are the policy positions that seemed universally supported by the candidates:
- Lowering taxes
- Increasing defense spending
- Reducing the deficit (evidently by magic if taxes are cut and defense increased)
- Slashing the social safety net
- Limiting immigration
- Denying the existence of structural racism
- Banning abortion
- Starting new wars in the Middle East
- Letting Israel dictate American foreign policy
- Refusing to back the nuclear deal with Iran
In addition to these basic notions, several candidates called for a flat tax, border wall, and elimination of the Common Core. Gay marriage dropped off a bit, replaced by the "religious persecution" dog whistle, which implies that not allowing Christians to discriminate against gay people is some kind of oppression against Christians. There actually weren't a lot of points of friction, apart from everyone other than Trump going after him. The biggest came between Chris Christie and Rand Paul over government surveillance.
It is also obvious after this debate that the Republican party needs Ben Carson as a cover for deflecting charges of racism. Carson himself attacked the very notion that racism exists in this country, allowing Republicans to say that a Bonafide Black Person backs them up. Carson was the only candidate asked about "race relations," which seemed to make the intentions of the debate organizers pretty obvious. (Or just expose them as racists.) Scott Walker got a question about police brutality, but completely deflected it. There was no real discussion of racist policing, a burning issue in this country for the past year. That silence is telling indeed.
Another thing I noticed was that the Republican party is dancing on a volcano, as far as religion is concerned. The question at the end about whether candidates had talked to God was pretty ridiculous, but some of the answers were downright scary. Scott Walker talked about being washed in the blood of the lamb in a way that would make anyone who's not an evangelical Protestant nervous about having him as president. Many candidates, like Cruz, also sounded the alarm about "religious persecution" which is a neat trick to avoid being direct about their homophobia, but still made him sound like someone suspicious of those who don't hold his beliefs.
Last, but not least, the debate has raised the profile of John Kasich, who had barely made it in. Unlike the likes of Cruz, Paul, Trump, et al, Kasich actually seems like a serious man. I got to thinking about this, and realized that this might a long con by the Republicans who are putting out a bunch of loonies so that a candidate who still follows their limiting and damaging ideology gets elected because he looks sane by comparison. Kasich, despite not being a nutter, has still gone after labor and abortion rights in an aggressive fashion. He also distinguished himself by discussing attending a gay wedding recently, unaware of the irony that if it was up to him, that wedding never would have actually happened. Despite this hypocrisy, Kasich's star has risen because he looks like a gem compared to the turds he's surrounded by. I will enjoy watching the continuing saga of my favorite reality TV show.
Monday, March 23, 2015
My Favorite Reality Show Is Officially Back
I'm not much of a fan of "reality" television, partially because it is anything but, and mostly because it features the kind of people that I normally try to avoid in real life. However, there is one reality show I cherish and love, and as of today, it is officially back on the air: the Republican presidential primaries. Our political system has become so corrupt, idiotic, and ridiculous that I have made the decision to turn it into entertainment. As Elvis Costello once trenchantly said, "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused." Or more depressingly, it's better to laugh than cry at the sorry state of our political process.
The ever hubristic Ted Cruz has predictably been the first to throw his hat in the ring, and time will tell if he will be like Rick Santorum in 2008 (one early victory followed by a pummeling ) Pat Buchanan in 1992 (losing with enough votes to shake things up at the convention) or Mike Huckabee in 2008 (not much, but good enough to get a show on Fox News). I doubt he'll seriously challenge for the nomination, as hilarious as that might be.
I am already plenty entertained. Cruz wants to be the leader of a diverse nation, but he started his campaign at Liberty University, an institution devoted to a radical interpretation of evangelical Christianity. It's yet another sign that the Republican Party is less a center-right party with a broad membership (as you would expect in a functioning two party system), and more a vehicle for an extremist right-wing ideology funded by craven corporate interests. The fun comes in when the true believers that form the party's base get so whackadoodle that they self-destruct a la Todd Aiken. The moneymen in the party establishment know deep in their hearts that they need the Tea Party lumpen in order to win, but also that satisfying them will lead to a candidate wholly unpalatable to the rest of the nation. The resulting jiu-jitsu leads to the likes of Mitt Romney disowning his own health care reform, or John McCain dumping his old critiques of American interventionism. Both men trashed their true selves to get the nomination, then suddenly found themselves much too conservative for the general electorate.
This time it seems like the establishment is trying really, really hard to shut things down early and get the inevitable establishment victor (likely Jeb Bush) through the gauntlet with the fewest embarrassing moments possible. I just read that Florida's primary got moved up to the earliest possible position, and that decision is transparently a play to get Jeb the nomination. Of course, the Tea Party hordes are not pleased, they already staged a walkout of his speech at CPAC, chanting "USA! USA!" Whether this was meant to be a comment about the fact that Jeb's spouse is a Mexican immigrant is up for speculation. (Or the fact that Bush is a Catholic. I always thought it would be a cold day in hell before the Republican party would nominate a Catholic, but I guess their voting demographics have changed since my youth.)
Here are my earliest predictions for the prospective candidates, which I will be updating as the crazy events unfold.
Ted Cruz: He'll be trying really, really hard to be this election's conservative choice. So far in his political career he has shown a lot more interest in being noticed and talked about than in actually governing, and this run for presidency pretty much seems par for the course. I predict third place in Iowa, with diminishing returns.
Jeb Bush: The establishment candidate getting all the money with an operation already in place, Jeb is the most likely to win the nomination. His stances on immigration and Bush fatigue will hurt, but it looks like the party bosses are getting behind him, and he populist challengers will be splitting their votes too much to stop him.
Chris Christie: Now that the smart establishment money is behind Jeb, Christie is dead in the water. There's still a chance he'll be indicted, his state's economic numbers are crap, and he is despised by the conservative base for his overtures to Barack Obama after Sandy. The establishment hardly sees him as reliable after the way he treated his convention speech in 2012 as an opportunity to polish his own knob. Christie hates losing, and won't enter the race if he thinks he won't win, which is why he denied the VP nomination last time around. For that reason I doubt Christie will even run.
Scott Walker: He's the one guy capable of winning the establishment away from Jeb, mostly because of his attacks on organized labor, which make corporate plutocrats cream their Brooks Brothers slacks in delight. However, he is much too obvious a Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers, and seems about as a smart as a bag of hammers. The establishment, desperate for a win, will want to avoid candidates without gravitas or brains. Walker will do well in the Midwest, and maybe even finish second overall.
Mike Huckabee: The obligatory Christian conservative candidate. Cruz might steal his thunder, but Huck will make some decent showings in Iowa and the South.
Rand Paul: Paul is an interesting case, in that he does not really fit into either the establishment or ultraconservative camps. Considering that the national party is pushing aggressive foreign policy against Obama, his more isolationist stance will probably rub the base the wrong way. Most ultraconservatives will view him as weak tea compared to the stronger stuff like Cruz. If world events increase anxiety about American power, he will be lucky to finish in the top three anywhere.
Rick Santorum: Will lock down the gay-hating bigot end of the Christian conservatives, and that's about it. Expect no repeat of his showings in 2012.
Marco Rubio: Comes across too callow and untested to get the establishment vote, and not nearly fiery enough for the true believers. Not sure he will bother.
Ben Carson: He's the real wild card. As a political outsider he might appeal to many hardcore conservatives, and he helps provide cover against accusations of Republican racism. Might just win South Carolina, but not come close to the nomination.
John Kasich: Yet another conservative governor, but not conservative enough. Unless he privatizes Ohio State University or mandates vaginal inspections of all unmarried women to make up for it, he will be on the fringes.
Rick Perry: He probably has an even bigger embarrassment up his sleeve than his "oops" moment. I cannot believe this man would seriously think he could get away with running again. At times I wonder if Rick Perry is a real person, or a performance artist playing a helluva joke on the country.
Bobby Jindal: Yesterday's news. His state is a basket case, the voters have turned against him, and he has been personally slammed by the conservative PM of Britain for his erroneous comments about Muslims in Birmingham. If he runs it will be yet another example of his misplaced faith in himself.
The ever hubristic Ted Cruz has predictably been the first to throw his hat in the ring, and time will tell if he will be like Rick Santorum in 2008 (one early victory followed by a pummeling ) Pat Buchanan in 1992 (losing with enough votes to shake things up at the convention) or Mike Huckabee in 2008 (not much, but good enough to get a show on Fox News). I doubt he'll seriously challenge for the nomination, as hilarious as that might be.
I am already plenty entertained. Cruz wants to be the leader of a diverse nation, but he started his campaign at Liberty University, an institution devoted to a radical interpretation of evangelical Christianity. It's yet another sign that the Republican Party is less a center-right party with a broad membership (as you would expect in a functioning two party system), and more a vehicle for an extremist right-wing ideology funded by craven corporate interests. The fun comes in when the true believers that form the party's base get so whackadoodle that they self-destruct a la Todd Aiken. The moneymen in the party establishment know deep in their hearts that they need the Tea Party lumpen in order to win, but also that satisfying them will lead to a candidate wholly unpalatable to the rest of the nation. The resulting jiu-jitsu leads to the likes of Mitt Romney disowning his own health care reform, or John McCain dumping his old critiques of American interventionism. Both men trashed their true selves to get the nomination, then suddenly found themselves much too conservative for the general electorate.
This time it seems like the establishment is trying really, really hard to shut things down early and get the inevitable establishment victor (likely Jeb Bush) through the gauntlet with the fewest embarrassing moments possible. I just read that Florida's primary got moved up to the earliest possible position, and that decision is transparently a play to get Jeb the nomination. Of course, the Tea Party hordes are not pleased, they already staged a walkout of his speech at CPAC, chanting "USA! USA!" Whether this was meant to be a comment about the fact that Jeb's spouse is a Mexican immigrant is up for speculation. (Or the fact that Bush is a Catholic. I always thought it would be a cold day in hell before the Republican party would nominate a Catholic, but I guess their voting demographics have changed since my youth.)
Here are my earliest predictions for the prospective candidates, which I will be updating as the crazy events unfold.
Ted Cruz: He'll be trying really, really hard to be this election's conservative choice. So far in his political career he has shown a lot more interest in being noticed and talked about than in actually governing, and this run for presidency pretty much seems par for the course. I predict third place in Iowa, with diminishing returns.
Jeb Bush: The establishment candidate getting all the money with an operation already in place, Jeb is the most likely to win the nomination. His stances on immigration and Bush fatigue will hurt, but it looks like the party bosses are getting behind him, and he populist challengers will be splitting their votes too much to stop him.
Chris Christie: Now that the smart establishment money is behind Jeb, Christie is dead in the water. There's still a chance he'll be indicted, his state's economic numbers are crap, and he is despised by the conservative base for his overtures to Barack Obama after Sandy. The establishment hardly sees him as reliable after the way he treated his convention speech in 2012 as an opportunity to polish his own knob. Christie hates losing, and won't enter the race if he thinks he won't win, which is why he denied the VP nomination last time around. For that reason I doubt Christie will even run.
Scott Walker: He's the one guy capable of winning the establishment away from Jeb, mostly because of his attacks on organized labor, which make corporate plutocrats cream their Brooks Brothers slacks in delight. However, he is much too obvious a Manchurian Candidate for the Koch Brothers, and seems about as a smart as a bag of hammers. The establishment, desperate for a win, will want to avoid candidates without gravitas or brains. Walker will do well in the Midwest, and maybe even finish second overall.
Mike Huckabee: The obligatory Christian conservative candidate. Cruz might steal his thunder, but Huck will make some decent showings in Iowa and the South.
Rand Paul: Paul is an interesting case, in that he does not really fit into either the establishment or ultraconservative camps. Considering that the national party is pushing aggressive foreign policy against Obama, his more isolationist stance will probably rub the base the wrong way. Most ultraconservatives will view him as weak tea compared to the stronger stuff like Cruz. If world events increase anxiety about American power, he will be lucky to finish in the top three anywhere.
Rick Santorum: Will lock down the gay-hating bigot end of the Christian conservatives, and that's about it. Expect no repeat of his showings in 2012.
Marco Rubio: Comes across too callow and untested to get the establishment vote, and not nearly fiery enough for the true believers. Not sure he will bother.
Ben Carson: He's the real wild card. As a political outsider he might appeal to many hardcore conservatives, and he helps provide cover against accusations of Republican racism. Might just win South Carolina, but not come close to the nomination.
John Kasich: Yet another conservative governor, but not conservative enough. Unless he privatizes Ohio State University or mandates vaginal inspections of all unmarried women to make up for it, he will be on the fringes.
Rick Perry: He probably has an even bigger embarrassment up his sleeve than his "oops" moment. I cannot believe this man would seriously think he could get away with running again. At times I wonder if Rick Perry is a real person, or a performance artist playing a helluva joke on the country.
Bobby Jindal: Yesterday's news. His state is a basket case, the voters have turned against him, and he has been personally slammed by the conservative PM of Britain for his erroneous comments about Muslims in Birmingham. If he runs it will be yet another example of his misplaced faith in himself.
Monday, February 18, 2013
What's the Matter With Nebraska?
As regulars of this blog know, I grew up in south-central Nebraska. Over the last fifteen years of my life, I have resided outside of my home state, and have been viewing political developments there with increasing worry. Thomas Frank's flawed masterpiece, What's the Matter with Kansas? tried to explain conservatism's appeal to working-class whites in areas that were once politically progressive. To understand what has changed within political conservatism, I think my home state provides the perfect case study.
Nebraska has long been a bastion of conservatism, both politically and socially. When the Cornhuskers won their national titles, they did it with a running offense that was a throwback to the olden days of football. Growing up, the most subtle dig you could make at something or someone was that it/he/she was "different." My love of indie rock in high school didn't make me cool, it made me the subject of mockery. In terms of politics, Nebraska has gone for Republicans in every single presidential election since LBJ's landslide in 1964.
Despite the Cornhusker state's conservative ethos, it has not been, until recently, dominated by radical conservative ideology. It has been a state with a robust public sphere, including well-funded schools, low tuition at state universities, plentiful state parks, and the best damn interstate rest areas in the nation. (No joke!) Democrats used to be elected to major offices, including Ben Nelson as both governor and senator, Bob Kerry as governor and senator, Jim Exon as senator for almost twenty years, and Ed Zorinsky for two terms, all within my lifetime. The state's conservatism was based in more traditional sources, not in free-market worship or anti-tax hysteria.
That has changed. Last year, the state's Republicans nominated a Tea Party-backed candidate, Deb Fischer, who is now in Washington. The other current senator, Mike Johanns, a popular former governor and relatively moderate conservative, has just announced that he won't run in 2014. He has been willing to compromise with the Democrats, and has been critical of the far-Right fringe, who now has the power to prevent his reelection. I would not be surprised if another Tea Party-style Republican ends up with the nomination.
As far as the governor's mansion is concerned, the race to succeed Dave Heineman was thrown open when the current lieutenant governor was caught using his state-issued cell phone to have sexy time with multiple mistresses. The first new candidate to step forward, Charlie Janssen, is the author of a voter ID bill and has pushed for Arizona-style racial profiling laws. He spouts off terms like "individual liberty" in his campaign pronouncements despite his desire to suppress the vote and use the police to harass Latinos. The man is so zealous in his hatreds that he wants a law to ban unborn children of undocumented immigrants from getting pre-natal care. ("Pro-life" indeed.) My state hardly has a sterling record when it comes to racism, but I never knew of Nebraska politicians who so nakedly used racist resentment to appeal to white voters. In sum, Janssen represents the kind of hard-Right conservatism Nebraskans used to let places like Texas and Mississippi practice.
Heineman, the current governor, has hardly been less zealous. In fact, he was so furious over the state legislature's override of his vetoing a bill restoring the aforementioned prenatal care that he campaigned against giving the low-paid unicameral reps a pay raise. He also recently proposed eliminating Nebraska's income tax while expanding its sales tax (including extending it to food), an insanely regressive move. Evidently that move has foundered, but in doing so, Heineman is attempting a full frontal assault on the state's traditional social contract in favor of the type of brutally regressive schemes favored in states like Texas and Florida.
My home state was always conservative, now it is becoming radical. I guess decades of Fox News, talk radio, and massive bales of money from outside organizations have worked. Every time I come home I am more and more shocked that the fundamental generosity and public-mindedness of my homeland has been replaced with hatred, resentment, fundamentalist religiosity, and laissez-faire orthodoxy. Nebraska's fate has been shared by large swaths of this country, and the fact that radicals now control so much of the country makes it that much harder for positive change to happen in this country.
Nebraska has long been a bastion of conservatism, both politically and socially. When the Cornhuskers won their national titles, they did it with a running offense that was a throwback to the olden days of football. Growing up, the most subtle dig you could make at something or someone was that it/he/she was "different." My love of indie rock in high school didn't make me cool, it made me the subject of mockery. In terms of politics, Nebraska has gone for Republicans in every single presidential election since LBJ's landslide in 1964.
Despite the Cornhusker state's conservative ethos, it has not been, until recently, dominated by radical conservative ideology. It has been a state with a robust public sphere, including well-funded schools, low tuition at state universities, plentiful state parks, and the best damn interstate rest areas in the nation. (No joke!) Democrats used to be elected to major offices, including Ben Nelson as both governor and senator, Bob Kerry as governor and senator, Jim Exon as senator for almost twenty years, and Ed Zorinsky for two terms, all within my lifetime. The state's conservatism was based in more traditional sources, not in free-market worship or anti-tax hysteria.
That has changed. Last year, the state's Republicans nominated a Tea Party-backed candidate, Deb Fischer, who is now in Washington. The other current senator, Mike Johanns, a popular former governor and relatively moderate conservative, has just announced that he won't run in 2014. He has been willing to compromise with the Democrats, and has been critical of the far-Right fringe, who now has the power to prevent his reelection. I would not be surprised if another Tea Party-style Republican ends up with the nomination.
As far as the governor's mansion is concerned, the race to succeed Dave Heineman was thrown open when the current lieutenant governor was caught using his state-issued cell phone to have sexy time with multiple mistresses. The first new candidate to step forward, Charlie Janssen, is the author of a voter ID bill and has pushed for Arizona-style racial profiling laws. He spouts off terms like "individual liberty" in his campaign pronouncements despite his desire to suppress the vote and use the police to harass Latinos. The man is so zealous in his hatreds that he wants a law to ban unborn children of undocumented immigrants from getting pre-natal care. ("Pro-life" indeed.) My state hardly has a sterling record when it comes to racism, but I never knew of Nebraska politicians who so nakedly used racist resentment to appeal to white voters. In sum, Janssen represents the kind of hard-Right conservatism Nebraskans used to let places like Texas and Mississippi practice.
Heineman, the current governor, has hardly been less zealous. In fact, he was so furious over the state legislature's override of his vetoing a bill restoring the aforementioned prenatal care that he campaigned against giving the low-paid unicameral reps a pay raise. He also recently proposed eliminating Nebraska's income tax while expanding its sales tax (including extending it to food), an insanely regressive move. Evidently that move has foundered, but in doing so, Heineman is attempting a full frontal assault on the state's traditional social contract in favor of the type of brutally regressive schemes favored in states like Texas and Florida.
My home state was always conservative, now it is becoming radical. I guess decades of Fox News, talk radio, and massive bales of money from outside organizations have worked. Every time I come home I am more and more shocked that the fundamental generosity and public-mindedness of my homeland has been replaced with hatred, resentment, fundamentalist religiosity, and laissez-faire orthodoxy. Nebraska's fate has been shared by large swaths of this country, and the fact that radicals now control so much of the country makes it that much harder for positive change to happen in this country.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
How the "I Side With" Quiz Might Reveal Big Trouble for Republicans
There's a pretty good online quiz at a site called "I Side With" that determines how much one's political beliefs match those of the various candidates for president. I've always liked these quizzes, since they often reveal things that the people who don't take them don't realize. For instance, I know someone who considered herself to be a moderate rather than liberal, but when she took one of these quizzes in 2008, the candidate she most resembled was Dennis Kucinich. (For the record, when I took the quiz, the Green candidate Jill Stein barely edged out president Obama in terms of their resemblance to me on the issues.)
One thing I really like about the I Side With site is that you can see how each individual state's aggregate of responses matched the candidates. One thing that really struck me was that reliably "blue" states very easily fit with president Obama's stances, but the "red" states of the South and West consistently did not have Mitt Romney as their best match, but Gary Johnson, the candidate for the Libertarian Party. In many cases Romney is in third place, after Johnson and Ron Paul.
To me, it looks like we are seeing evidence that the GOP's uneasy combination of libertarians, neo-con foreign policy hawks, and religious conservatives might be too volatile to hold together. Ever since 1980, when Jerry Falwell and others mobilized the evangelical vote for Ronald Reagan, the Christian Right has played a huge role in the Republican Party's success. However, as times are changing. Fewer and fewer people are against gay marriage, weekly church-goers, or supportive of the war on drugs. The youth are significantly more liberal on social issues than their elders, and a Republican party that supports positions that look increasingly out of touch and regressive will need to either adapt or suffer the consequences.
Furthermore, with the isolationist sentiments long powerful in American history seeing a revival after the failure of the Bush administration's adventures abroad, the hawkishness of Mitt and the Republican establishment actually isn't representative of the direction the voters are headed. Before the Cold War, conservatives tended to isolationist, and they started moving in that direction again in the 1990s once the USSR fell. Lest we forget, before he made a name for himself through invasions of tenuous legality, George W. Bush campaigned with a promise not to engage in "nation building" abroad.
Of course, this data is all very unscientific and self-selecting, and probably skews young. However, it does point to a Republican party that looks like a circus performer balancing spinning plates hoping to keep them from crashing to the ground. The party has become so doctrinaire that it won't nominate a candidate for president that does not simultaneously support laissez-faire capitalism, sustained American commitment abroad, and conforms to the religious Right on issues like homosexuality and abortion. This is why the president's people are wise to start waging the culture wars from the liberal side, since it will peel away economic conservatives who do not agree with the dominionist theology of many in the GOP. In the near future the Republicans must decide whether they will benefit more by keeping religious conservatives happy and simultaneously alienate libertarians, or jettison "values voters" for economic conservatives in the political middle.
One thing I really like about the I Side With site is that you can see how each individual state's aggregate of responses matched the candidates. One thing that really struck me was that reliably "blue" states very easily fit with president Obama's stances, but the "red" states of the South and West consistently did not have Mitt Romney as their best match, but Gary Johnson, the candidate for the Libertarian Party. In many cases Romney is in third place, after Johnson and Ron Paul.
To me, it looks like we are seeing evidence that the GOP's uneasy combination of libertarians, neo-con foreign policy hawks, and religious conservatives might be too volatile to hold together. Ever since 1980, when Jerry Falwell and others mobilized the evangelical vote for Ronald Reagan, the Christian Right has played a huge role in the Republican Party's success. However, as times are changing. Fewer and fewer people are against gay marriage, weekly church-goers, or supportive of the war on drugs. The youth are significantly more liberal on social issues than their elders, and a Republican party that supports positions that look increasingly out of touch and regressive will need to either adapt or suffer the consequences.
Furthermore, with the isolationist sentiments long powerful in American history seeing a revival after the failure of the Bush administration's adventures abroad, the hawkishness of Mitt and the Republican establishment actually isn't representative of the direction the voters are headed. Before the Cold War, conservatives tended to isolationist, and they started moving in that direction again in the 1990s once the USSR fell. Lest we forget, before he made a name for himself through invasions of tenuous legality, George W. Bush campaigned with a promise not to engage in "nation building" abroad.
Of course, this data is all very unscientific and self-selecting, and probably skews young. However, it does point to a Republican party that looks like a circus performer balancing spinning plates hoping to keep them from crashing to the ground. The party has become so doctrinaire that it won't nominate a candidate for president that does not simultaneously support laissez-faire capitalism, sustained American commitment abroad, and conforms to the religious Right on issues like homosexuality and abortion. This is why the president's people are wise to start waging the culture wars from the liberal side, since it will peel away economic conservatives who do not agree with the dominionist theology of many in the GOP. In the near future the Republicans must decide whether they will benefit more by keeping religious conservatives happy and simultaneously alienate libertarians, or jettison "values voters" for economic conservatives in the political middle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)