Now that we’ve had a week to observe the rightie reaction to the election, it’s safe to say they’re not going to put up a cohesive counter-attack anytime soon. They may still not know what hit them in time for the 2010 midterms.
The extremists, which are most of the base, refuse to acknowledge they are in an ideological minority. They still think if they move further Right, tweak their fundraising infrastructures, find candidates with a little more charisma (e.g., Sarah Palin and clones thereof), and campaign even dirtier, they’ll make a comeback in the next election.
Gary Kamiya writes that the GOP’s only hope is to reinvent themselves as pragmatists, which is true, but they’re not going to do that. Kamiya says,
The right’s love affair with the feckless Palin indicates it has learned nothing from the Bush and McCain debacles. Bush’s presidency was a decisive refutation of the idea that Republicans can win by playing only to true believers. And McCain’s fateful decision to embrace the Bush-Rove play-to-the-base strategy cost him any chance he had at winning the election. …
… Some conservatives, like the National Review’s Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru, have tepidly argued that the GOP must reach out to the middle class. But they don’t explain exactly how it’s supposed to do this without abandoning its core ideology. McCain made a classic Republican appeal to the “aspirational” middle class by attacking tax increases on the richest Americans, and he promoted a free-market approach to healthcare. But Americans roundly rejected both ideas. Lowry and Ponnuru blame McCain for being a bad salesman, but the real problem is the product.
Kamiya’s analysis is really good and worth reading all the way through. In a nutshell, the GOP’s “appeal to the base” approach is backfiring because the base is getting smaller and narrower. This base is increasingly out of sync with the nation’s political center.
Moderates rejected the GOP for two reasons: because Bush’s presidency was a disaster, and because they didn’t like the GOP’s harsh, ugly tone. That tone is the result of the fact that the party was taken over long ago by “movement conservatives,” true believers who bitterly oppose secular modernism and everything associated with it. Their hard-line Jacobinism, imbued with an inchoate sense of angry resentment, drives the right’s culture war and animates the movement’s base. It has become synonymous with modern conservatism, which is why McCain’s ugly campaign was no accident.
The problem is that moderates are completely turned off both by the GOP’s performance and by its extreme, demonizing worldview and rhetoric. And the reason they’re turned off is that the country’s demographics have fundamentally changed — and changed in a way that makes it impossible for the GOP in its current form to survive.
In his column today, David Brooks divides the party into Traditionalists (i.e., barking mad whackjobs and the low-information voters who believe them) and Reformists (i.e., party “elites” like Brooks who for years lived under the delusion they were speaking for movement conservatism, when in fact they were serving only as the respectable facade, while the base only cared what Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity said). Brooks says,
The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.
They are going to win, first, because Congressional Republicans are predominantly Traditionalists. Republicans from the coasts and the upper Midwest are largely gone. Among the remaining members, the popular view is that Republicans have been losing because they haven’t been conservative enough.
Second, Traditionalists have the institutions. Over the past 40 years, the Conservative Old Guard has built up a movement of activist groups, donor networks, think tanks and publicity arms. The reformists, on the other hand, have no institutions.
FYI, the “reformists” are mostly pundits employed in mainstream media (like the New York Times).
Now Brooks has a moment of clarity:
Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout.
This narrative happens to be mostly bogus at this point. Most professional conservatives are lifelong Washingtonians who live comfortably as organization heads, lobbyists and publicists. Their supposed heroism consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with. But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rationale for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement.
In other words, they are destroying themselves from the inside, strangling themselves with their own ever shrinking and ever more inflexible movement.
Well said. It will be interesting to see whether the Republican boat manages to right itself or not.
There must be an actual neurological disorder in which a person misreads a sentence and in so doing, heightens the meaning. That just happened to me:
Their supposed heroin consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with.
Brooks’ Subliminal-Perception Disorder, or “Cabbage Slaw,” in the vernacular.
While the conservatives are in disarray, with a significant number of them believing what’s needed is more delusion, not less, I’m interested in seeing how progressives are going to claim the public mindshare, how we’re going to change the way the public views the world. Conservatives have dominated this space since Ronald Reagan, getting the public to believe that government is the problem, that taxes of any kind are bad, that any collective action is socialism, and so on. There’s a vacuum waiting to be filled.
I have no real understanding of what makes up the Republicans, why they drive themselves into the right end, or how they might correct themselves.
However, I suspect the it will take only a little bit of effort. My understanding is that McCain lost by a landslide, but that is only relative. The polls said that he was not always that far behind. The election had a lot to do with inertia and tradition. People will vote the way they have voted, more or less. I suspect it will take just a few themes before the Repubs are competetive again.
My concern is about the Democrats. So, I have been noticing that Pres. Obama has been taking on much of the arguments and belligerence of the Bush administration towards Iran. So, Obama has said he wants to stop Iranian efforts to make a nuclear bomb. The US intelligence and international Atomic watchdogs have said there is no evidence that they are doing any such thing.
Yes, it’s a great way to unify one’s party when you win an election. Everyone gets behind a winner. However, I must point out that the Democrats in Congress have supported Bush’s adventures just as much as the Republicans. These efforts go one way and much of the Democratic base that got Obama elected would have the country go another way.
I suspect there will be many such tensions appearing as time goes on. So, another one I see is the FISA bill and Obama’s support for bringing corporations to justice. Will he actually support the laws, or give these telecoms get out of jail free cards?
Don’t you think that the Democrats have just as many problems with keeping their constituents together as the Republicans?
steven,
Don’t you think that the Democrats have just as many problems with keeping their constituents together as the Republicans?
No. And don’t you think most of us can spot a concern troll?
Joanr16… I experience the same disorder every time Maha uses the term fetus people.. I misread it as festus people, and conjure up a image of the character Festus on the old TV series Gunsmoke. Festus wasn’t a bad guy, but he wasn’t the brightest guy either.
#4 It’s my understanding that the telecoms have already been absolved. It seems to me it was added in a bill that the dems wanted but needed the repugs to sign and that was the line that the repubs said it would take to get them to sign.
Is there a place to check on the net for what has and has not been done?
“concern troll.”
My concern is that Obama talked left and progressive to get support from that end, but will walk corporate and right because those people have extracted stronger promises of his support from them. I believe that the prograssives have to stand up for their positions starting last year so that Obama is pushed to implement a progressive agenda.
I am aware that Obama has said and done things during the election that made him seem center and rightish. The argument was made that he had to do this to get elected. But, we were told, once he was elected he would revisit these issues and correct his position. This sounded crazy wishful thinking.
I want him to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now. But, we hear he’s going to move our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is not stopping the wars.
This is only one example. My concern is that Democrats should come up with some kind of unifying approach to these issues that are of concern to the left. If not, then Obama as a President who tends to walk right while talking left, will go on enacting a center right, or right-right agenda that the left will not be able to prevent or even effect.
Dear Steven the Concern Troll,
If you thought Obama was out to stop the war in Afghanistan you simply haven’t been paying the slightest attention to the man’s campaigning over the past year. He has consistently said he wants to take troops out of Iraq and up the troops in Afghanistan so that war can be done properly instead of half-assed as it has been done so far. Now people can disagree that this is a good thing but to expect Obama to not do there what he has repeatedly promised to do is stupid. And this is only one example.
If you thought Obama (or Hillary as another example) is a very lefty fellow instead of centrist with some progressive goals and some centrist goals, again, you just haven’t been paying the slightest attention. I think leftists can expect a centrist such as Obama (that is, someone who in Europe or Canada would be center-right, as most Domecratic candidates are) to be too centrist for their desires, but of course so much better than the far-right nutcases of the GOP that there is absolutely no comparison.
Now trying to get these centrist people — who have been quite open and honest about their centrist policies — to become more leftist is a good goal, and we should do it. And we should try to get more leftist people in office. But this electing of centrists, honest centrists, is a huge step forward and a huge step back from the brink that the far-right nutcase GOP wants us to jump over.
My concern is that Obama talked left and progressive to get support from that end, but will walk corporate and right because those people have extracted stronger promises of his support from them [sic].
Examples? Where are you getting this unique intel?
In fact, in September when the Obama campaign broke all records and raised $150 million, that total came from over 600,000 donors– an average of $250 each. Obama is the first president in a long time with no strong ties to any industry or lobby.
Qrazy Qat already corrected you on your baseless assertions regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (again, where are you getting this? Ron Paul? Nader?), so I won’t bother.
And as s pointed out, you don’t have any facts right on FISA, either.
#8 I don’t think Obama’s goal is to “walk corporate and right”. I do think with the world economy in the toilet, he may have to spend time and money to try to repair the damage that has been done for 8 years.
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans — conservatives — were worthy of respect, even from a NE liberal like me. You could argue policy with them, respect if not agree with them, and get some respect in return.
By the 1990’s the die was cast. A bunch of good Republican senators resigned (remember?) because they were so disgusted with the direction their party was taking and by the complete lack of civility with which their colleagues were running Congress.
The Republicans in Congress since 1994 and in power during the Bush administration have non-conservative populist radicals whose respect comes from fear of their strong-arm tactics and who used language (including calling themselves “conservative”) to some effect. I think they’ve lost most of their traction during a failed two-term Bush administration and their modus operandi during this election. I don’t think that faction survive much longer in any great numbers. The question is whether there remain, within the party, enough good guys to power the party’s return to respectability, civility, and substantive, relevant policies.
QrazyQat, Maha, joanr 16, and others,
Yes, we knew he was a centrist and eventually voted for him anyway because, as you said, he’s better than another right-wing administration. However, as a centrist he seems to be continuing the wars, doing nothing about universal health care, and has said little to oppose the trade treaties that made it attractive to move American jobs overseas. All these efforts will require standing up to corporations. So, it was strategic to support him, but he has definite drawbacks that I’m saying we should address now.
I began by saying that the Democrats have not acknowledged that they have significant unrecognized disagreements within the broad coalition that elected Obama President. In general, there is a continuing dispute between business Democrats that make Obama a centrist and Progressives who are going to ask Obama to stop the wars, provide a sustainable health care system that covers everyone, and force corporations to bring jobs back to America. The point of my bringing this up was to say Progressives have to come up with some good arguments to make Obama adopt their agenda.
I am not the only one saying this. Here is The Nation’s editors saying the same,
“…He carries a reform agenda–largely driven by progressives–into the election: an end to the occupation of Iraq, using the money squandered there to rebuild America; affordable healthcare for all, paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy; a concerted drive for energy independence, generating jobs while investing in renewable energy and conservation. He is committed to empowering labor, to holding corporations and banks more accountable and to challenging our trade policies. A social liberal, his judicial appointees will keep the right from consolidating its hold on the federal judiciary. Obama may not be a “movement” progressive in the way that Reagan was a “movement” conservative, and he may have disappointed activists with his recent compromises, but make no mistake: his election will open a new era of reform, the scope of which will depend–as Obama often says–on independent progressive mobilization to keep the pressure on and overcome entrenched interests…”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080901/borosage_kvh
I am wanting to, as they said, “keep pressure on and overcome entrenched interests.”
You wanted to to know how I could say Obama talks left but walks right when, as you claimed, he got so much support from small donors. You thought my information came from lefties who, you imply, reasonable people can ignore. I’m looking at The Los Angeles Times on July 23, 2008, Dan Morain, who quotes in his report, “he cannot raise $150 million or whatever his budget says he needs without going to large contributors.”
You can find reports where investment banks each have given over $500,000 to Obama.
One of Nader’s complaints about Obama has been that Obama had Palestinean contacts, all of who he has ignored and snubbed, since he has committed himself to supporting Israel. This is evidence that some lobbies will have enormous influence on Obama.
I’m saying we cannot ignore the fact that despite all the little contributions, the Obama campaign owes a lot to its large and powerful corporate and powerful contributors. This is where there is conflict.
As for the “concern troll” accusation. I thought perhaps Maha thought that only people concerned to protect Republicans would want to talk about internal Democratic conflicts. As I said, I don’t know much about the Republicans so I cannot add to or take away from what Maha says about their problems. My concern is with the Democrats whom I know and care more about. I’m tired of having to vote for Democrats because I know they will as centrists do the same thing that I would expect Republicans to do, only “more thoughtfully.” I am wanting to talk up the Progressive agenda that I want Obama to adopt because it’s legal, for one thing, I think it’s only right, and if all we get is more wars, crushing hospital bills, and low wage jobs from Obama because he can’t stand up to corporations, then we might get the Republican President and Congress I don’t want back again sooner.
So, if my concern makes you all despondent and distracted maybe it will also focus your attention on persuading Obama to walk as well as talk Progressive.
steven, see if you can wrap your head around this concept:
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
Are we clear on that point?
He is neither doing anything or talking about what he will do at this point, because of a tradition that we have only one President at a time, and it’s considered bad form to go about announcing policy decisions while the other guy still has several weeks to go.
So, as you say, “he seems to be continuing the wars, doing nothing about universal health care, and has said little to oppose the trade treaties that made it attractive to move American jobs overseas.”
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
He’s not “doing” ANYTHING publicly right now, because
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
He may be planning all kinds of stuff, but we will hear nothing specific about these until January, because
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
You seem to think that because you haven’t heard Obama specifically announce that he will do thus and so, that means he won’t be doing it. No, it means
BARACK OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET.
And he will not be operating a “shadow government” while Bush is still in the White House. This is traditional, and it’s also sensible.
If you are not, in fact, a concern troll, you are damn tiresome, and you display the kind of defeatist attitude that has kept progressivism down for a long time. Go away.
I have heard, in his campaign and transition team Obama is limiting the people who were lobbyists. If you were a lobbyist, you can not work in the area that you lobbied for. If you leave to be a lobbyist, you must wait a year.
Steven, WTF? Are you writing from the future? You are predisposed, without any evidence, to condemn Obama for things he has neither done nor said.
I feel even more certain now that you’re a dishonest Ralph Nader or Ron Paul supporter regurgitating propaganda, which is why you’re so out of sync with reality. And you are also, I take it, banned.
Steven –
Obama is I hope going to be president of the whole country – not just progressives. When he does lead for the whole country (not just me), I am going to be disappointed, frustrated, sometimes angry at compromises that are made. But if we are headed in the right direction (left) and if the foundation is laid for a lasting popular move to the left, I can accept that I won’t get everything I want at once. This is called maturity.
The fact that Obama is not yet President is not lost on me. The fact that he is talking about Iran and forcing them to stop making nuclear weapons shows it is not too late now to explain why an attack on Iran would not be a good idea.
Whereas Bush could not have cared less what large numbers of tha population felt or expressed to him about things like the war, I thought Obama would listen. Well, what would we want to tell him? Something about how ramping up troop levels anywhere at this point is not a good idea.
I anticipate that there will be some disagreement about this. Some may think that We need 100,00 troops in central Asia, some others may think not…When this site was interested in smirking about the Republican’s problems, I thought that was wasting time, because the Democrats have more than enough problems with big disputes like what to do about the War on Terror…
You should just let the experts tell you whether we should attack Iran? Are you willing to let someone else determine your position on an issue like war and peace? When I hear you complain that I’m not waiting long enough to complain about what Obama has done, I get the impression that you think it’s all about Obama.
At this point it’s what the people think about war and peace, and so, it’s not now at all about Obama. When you say you think I’m disappointed about what Obama has said or done you think I’m talking from some cheering section. You’re saying something like, “wait,…give the team a chance. The game hasn’t started”
That’s a fairly limited understanding of the people’s role in a democracy…cheerleading.
The fact that he is talking about Iran and forcing them to stop making nuclear weapons shows it is not too late now to explain why an attack on Iran would not be a good idea.
I believe he figured that out a long time before you did. Do you not recall all the grief he caught about actually practicing diplomacy with Iran?
There’s a huge middle ground between “cheerleading” and “being ridiculous.” You’re leaning way far toward the latter.
Good bye.