home

Deconstructing the Republican Meltdown

As the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat rhetoric of the right becomes increasingly shrill, it's worth asking why Republicans, having demonstrated a complete inability to govern responsibly, are so shocked to learn that they now reside on the fringes of mainstream thought. Two perspectives today provide some insight.

Anthony DiMaggio points out that "right-wing conservatives and Republican political leaders" view themselves as "the legitimate rulers of the United States and the world."

This basic contempt for anything but one-party rule is manifested in a number of dire threats repeated by the party, with its members promising the end of Western civilization as we know it if they lose their dominant status in government.

[more ...]

The Democrats' attempt to appeal across party lines has clearly not been the preferred tactic of the Republican Party. Angry over their likely loss of power in the upcoming election, they have become increasingly desperate in their attacks on the Democrats and the legitimacy of the two party state. This is particularly disturbing at a time when it is becoming harder and harder to discern concrete or substantive differences in the economic policies of the two parties. ... The Democratic Party today may be morally bankrupt, spineless, and bland, but none of those are anywhere near as dangerous as the Republican Party's fundamentalist contempt for multi-party elections and bi-partisan politics.

It must be rough to be demoted from Supreme Authority on All Things Moral and Political to Supremely Irrelevant in just a couple of years. We've seen that Republicans will do anything and say anything to remain in (or seize) power. Everything, that is, except govern responsibly.

The Rovian tradition of using polarizing tactics to anger and divide the country, and to win elections by narrow margins, served its purpose, but it always depended on bringing together two groups that had little in common: the religiously intolerant and their anti-intellectual friends on the far right who hate anyone they define as "different," and the wealthy members of the corporate elite who, while often well-educated latte sippers, pretend to be ordinary folk. That coalition has crumbled.

In a column filled with inaccurate statements of fact, David Brooks manages to get one thing right (two things, if you want to count the obvious observation that "Ronald Reagan was no intellectual"): the Republican "disdain for liberal intellectuals" somehow morphed into a disdain for education and intelligence. And for any ideas or behaviors or beverage preferences that aren't associated with the working class.

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Look at the "class-warfare clichés" that recently dominated the Republican convention.

Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. ... But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

The Republican meltdown was inevitable. Nobody with a brain wants to be part of a party that diminishes the value of education and rational debate.

The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.
< Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right Under CT Constitution | When Will We See Full Troopergate Report? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    TChris, good lord. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    I only read the first 3-4 paragraphs of what you wrote and quoted and it's so chock-full of (apparently) unintended irony that I couldn't continue.

    Like someone smart once said "When you score a touchdown, act like you've been there before."

    But, hey, your comments will probably play very well here.

    Could you be more specific? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by WS on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    Besides, what's wrong with a little end zone dancing?  

    (tosses ball to the ground and does funky chicken dance)

    Parent

    There is a lesson there for Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Manuel on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    The biggest problem for Republicans is that they have governed incompetently.  

    The Rovian tradition of using polarizing tactics to anger and divide the country, and to win elections by narrow margins, served its purpose, but it always depended on bringing together two groups that had little in common: the religiously intolerant and their anti-intellectual friends on the far right who hate anyone they define as "different," and the wealthy members of the corporate elite who, while often well-educated latte sippers, pretend to be ordinary folk. That coalition has crumbled.

    The Democrats have issues that mirror this one.  They will win this election with a coalition that itsef is fragile and can not be taken for granted.  How Democrats handle the upcoming economic crisis will go a long way in determining the future of both parties and the country over the next few decades.

    hopefully it will lead (none / 0) (#10)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    to a multi-party system, like we used to have...

    Parent
    Democrat's attempts to appeal across party lines (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by coast on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    LOL...please.  Neither party is attempting to appeal to anything other than their base.  Between McCain's continued attacks on Obama's association and Obama's direct statment for Democrats to "get in their face", neither has shown that things will change as far as reaching across party lines.

    Man (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    people never get tired of quoting that "get in their face line" out of context, do they?  I guess these are the wages of anti-intellectualism.

    Parent
    Out of context? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by coast on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    There is a big difference between telling your supports to discuss with those who do not believe the same as you or who may not understand another candidate's position on an issue than to go out and tell them "I want you to argue with them and get in their face".  My mind can be changed a lot more often with a reasonable and intelligent explanation than by someone yelling at me.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    Clearly he was telling his supporters to go yell at anyone they have a political disagreement with, as opposed to telling them to aggressively correct people who are spreading falsehoods.

    Parent
    Spreading Falsehoods (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by coast on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    This is an election right?

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    And that makes it more common, not magically better.

    Parent
    You must not have noticed (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    that the Dems have been not reaching but moving en masse across party lines for the past 25 years.

    The "center" has moved radically to the right during that time, thanks to Republican extremism, propaganda, misinformation and class warfare.

    Parent

    Which base? (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by smott on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    I think much of what Obama and the whole Dem party has done last couple years is move decidely away from their traditional Democractic base. Votes on FISA, energy, rhetoric on abortion, SS, I mean I watch Dean go on Fox and talk about courting Evangelicals. To say nothing of the whole Dean Western Strategy.

    They may be trying to expand theur base but they risk losing long-time supporters.

    Parent

    I dunno ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    Obama always mentions drilling and nuclear power now, which is a pretty blatant attempt to cross party lines (or pander, depending on your opinion).  Obama is trying to take a harder line on killing Bin Laden, per the last debate.  He's also pitching smaller government, no gun bans, and other centrist positions, obviously trying to get the independent vote.  

    It seems McCain is more focused on rallying his base, though.  Except for this new $300 million mortgage buy-out, which is a pretty socialist solution for a supposed conservative (especially during his proposed "spending freeze").

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#18)
    by coast on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    If Obama is elected president, which appears likely, and he actually pushes through more drilling and more nuclear power then I'll be proven wrong.  But I don't think he will stand a chance of getting either by the House or Senate, especially if there is not a narrow margin in either.  The currently seated Dems will feel like they do not have to appease anyone.

    Smaller government?  In what sense?

    Parent

    Two posts combined (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by koshembos on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    While Anthony DiMaggio talks about The similarity of the Republican party and the communist party in the Soviet Union, David Brooks analyzes the Republican collapse. I believe this two references have nothing in common.

    I agree with DiMaggio. The constant war against Bill Clinton stemmed from the fact that Republicans deeply believe that a Democratic president is illegimate. They'll do the with an Obama presidency. I think that isn't the result of the Republican ideology, it's stems from the fascistic nature they share with the communist party (they vote party line, Bush didn't belief in the law, starting wars at a whim, etc).

    The problem with the Democrats is that they are not the the party of FDR, JFK, LBJ or even Bill Clinton. It's a group the about 60%-70% of it will feel comfortable in the Republican party were it democratic with a small d. I believe that most Democrats agreed with FISA, Obama included, with the need to not to leave Iraq right away, etc.

    We've all got a boogey-man.... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    for conservatives, it's Obama...you'd think he was Stalin if you listen to right-wing radio.

    for liberals, it's been Bush...you'd think he was Hitler if you read left-wing blogs.

    For anti-state knuckleheads like me, its both:)  

    I think having "bad guys who are all bad all the time" makes us feel better about this crazy crap-shoot we call life or something.

    yeah, they're so comparable ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    Bush got us into Iraq, helped kill our economy, education system, and standing around the world.  He condoned spying, torture, cronyism, and turned his back on New Orleans.

    Obama was associates with someone who committed violent protests 40 years ago and a mean preacher.

    Difference is, one stereotype is deserved.

    Parent

    I take it you haven't met Kdog yet (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    He favors system collapse. Looks like he may get it yet.

    Parent
    Don't know if I'd put it that way.... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    I favor doing the right thing, come what may.

    Doing the right thing is hard sometimes.

    Granted, Bush is proven bad news, and bad news on more fronts, while Obama is only potential bad news...excluding all the bad news he was already party to in the senate of course.

    So you can say I don't believe Obama will ever actually end the occupation of Iraq, fix the economy, stop torture, ett, etc, etc.

    Parent

    in your case (none / 0) (#30)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    ... I'd offer that identifying the right thing is hard sometimes.

    Parent
    Can't argue with that.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    all I know for sure is how little I know.

    Parent
    Bush? (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    He's small potatoes.  I save my hate for the real deal, Cheney.  Bush is just a pawn.

    Although if you put a gun to my head I GUESS I'd be willing to admit he's not as bas as Hitler :)

    Parent

    Only because Bush didn't have (none / 0) (#38)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    the ability to make this nation a complete fascistic regime.  As I recall Germany was on its knees in the late 1920's when Hitler arrived giving hope and sustenance to a starving and defeated nation.  The moral of that story is that if it gets bad enough, a charlatan can emerge.

    Parent
    You are aware (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    that there are those who are very concerned that that's exactly what's taking place in this election?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    Which is complete bull.  I have read "Mein Kampf" and "The Audacity of Hope", and "Dreams of My Father".  People knew what they were getting with Hitler, that's what they wanted.

    This isn't post WWI/Great Depression era Germany either.  They had a lot of other issues that we can't even touch today.

    Youth are excited about Obama, so are Germans, that's about the extent of the comparison.  Youth were also excited about Civil Rights too. just saying...

    I know you weren't implying that, just referring to others (at least I hope so), but I just had to vent a little on that one.

    Parent

    My grandfather told me that the (none / 0) (#43)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:44 AM EST
    'brown shirts' brought food and coal to the population. And soon the populace thought they could do no wrong.  So as far as the people knowing what they wanted, not so clear.  What they wanted was the ability to live in peace. The 30% who are the "authoritarian" (and they seem to exist in all societies) were the ones who pushed the movement and infused their dark fears onto the struggling masses.

    Parent
    "knew what they were getting" (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    Doesn't mean that they pushed for those things.  They wanted peace and prosperity, which came at a price.  But they knew that price.  Hitler made it clear.  He sugar-coated it in jobs and food and prosperity for a country that was in serious trouble, but he still defined the cost.

    So while most people followed Hitler for other reasons, they still knew, to a certain extent (not necessarily the full implications), what his views/goals were with regards to the Jews.
    And that was a price they were willing to pay for food, and coal, and jobs.

    Parent

    Where did you learn all this? (none / 0) (#47)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    My grandparents came from a small island off the coast of Denmark and Germany and they fought sending their children to the youth camps.  There wasn't a whole lot that impoverished, uneducated people struggling to survivie aftet WWI were capable of. I don't think you have an appreciation for the devastation of the country at that time. People sold their family picture frames and wedding rings for a few potatoes. I also know people (some jews) who fled the country and it isn't quite as black and white as you say.  

    Parent
    A lot of places (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    My Grandmother was German (not Jewish). She was able to flee Germany for the U.S. becuase she had dual Italian citizenship.  Her father was a nazi, and her husband (who she met in the U.S.) was Jewish.

    Partly because of this twisted ancestry, I have actually studied this a lot.  I lived in Germany for a time, and I studied a lot of the history while I was in school here and abroad.  I don't want to give the impression that I hate Germans or don't understand the root causes, far from it.  I have spent a lot of my life trying to come to terms with how it happened.  However, it is important to recognize that people weren't ignorant of the anti-Jewish sentiment of Hitler.  He was very open and clear in his sentiments from the beginning.

    Obviously it's not black and white, It wasn't my intent to paint it that way. There were legitimate reasons for people to like Hitler.  And the vast majority of people were just trying to get by, and were bystanders rather than active participants.  They were looking out for their own skin, but that doesn't make them blameless, just human.  Ever heard that poem by Martin Niemoller?

    My main point of all this is that when comparing Hitler to Obama, people make the point that under Hitler, the youth were brainwashed, as some people say happens under Obama.  However, under Hitler, they were brainwashed into something very specific and obvious from the get-go: anti-semitism.  This wasn't something that was sprung on them after election day.  With Obama, if brainwashing is going on it is of the "hope and change" variety.  Totally different ball game.

    Parent

    I certainly never would consider Obama (4.00 / 0) (#49)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    and Hitler in the same sentence.  Some of Obama's followers are no doubt "authoritarian" personality types. But to my way of thinking (relatives and a jewish husband) the circumstances of the post WWI era and today are two different worlds.  Citizens in America today cannot fathom what people (all kinds) lived through during that time.  I read a wonderful book "Stones from a River" which helped me understand how people evolved during that time, some into hateful jealous people and others into kind but helplessly trapped.  To me it is a little like blaming all of the whites in the south for racism without realizing how much control the KKK had over the average person's life.

    Parent
    Willam Buckley's son endorses Obama (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    as proof of this schism.  Buckey cites Obama's intellect and temperment v. McCain playing to the "kooks" in the Republican party.  I think a couple of weeks ago, a former National Review editor endorsed Obama for the same reason.  Both mention that they disagree with Obama on numerous issues, but both basically say, so what?

    link

    Could we possibly save the victory lap (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    for after the victory?

    No good can come of this.

    why does any middle class voter go R? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    "The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

    From a Noam Chomsky article at commondreams.  

    Are abortion, gay marriage and flag burning so hot that you would compromise the "american dream" or your financial well-being?  

    I guess so....

    There are plenty of (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    noisy Republican economists and talking heads that will try to prove the MC doesn't do better under Democrats.  And these talking heads will do a good job, and the people who listen will think they do a good job.  

    Dems need to demonstrate the advantages of secular government.  We'd have to convince people that government shouldn't have anything to do with regulating those three things (God Guns and Gays) and that government doesn't exist to enforce the 10 Commandments.  It's a tough job, cos people get religious about their tax dollars.  

    It looks like we will have an opportunity to sell our brand again.  

    Parent

    We must not forget how very many (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by pluege on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
    have paid an incredibly steep price to reach this state:

    It must be rough to be demoted from Supreme Authority on All Things Moral and Political to Supremely Irrelevant in just a couple of years.

    the current republican state of dystopia was and is built on the backs of massive human suffering, death, and destruction. Although politically we appear to be beginning to put the evil genie back in the bottle, the republican reign of terror has yet to peak in terms of delivering the maximum suffering to the maximum amount of humanity.

    ya (none / 0) (#5)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    I'm a big fan of Brooks and though I don't always agree with him I think he's spot on here.


    I knew they must exist, somewhere... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    but I've never met a Brooks fan before!

    IIRC, David Brooks once wrote a column explaining why women should start families earlier instead of working on their careers.  It came across as a patronizing man telling women what to do with their lives.  Needless to say, it did not make a Brooks fan of me.

    Parent

    yup (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:11:51 PM EST
    Yeah, I enjoy him, watch him on the News Hour all the time. I read his column now and again.  I dont always agree but in an era where a conservative voice with a triple digit IQ is hard to find, he's pretty good.

    Parent
    truly? (none / 0) (#29)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    what part of the following do you believe ...

    Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable ...

    ... manages to qualify for a "spot on" description?

    Parent

    context counts for something. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    David Brooks has said repeatedly that she is absolutely not qualified, not his cup of tea, a force of ignorance and a "cancer" on the republican party.

    He's a Republican, he has to say something nice about her but the full message is clearly that she's overwhelmingly a net negative.

    Parent

    "so shocked to learn" (none / 0) (#6)
    by rilkefan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    Is there any evidence for this claim?

    Typical short term Repub focus (none / 0) (#8)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    It's cheap and relatively easy to win an election by polarizing the population and resorting to the fear politics of Bush '00 and '04.

    Just the same way that it's profitable and easy to deregulate Wall St. for short-term gain.

    The problem is, these are not sustainable solutions.  The reality is going to catch up eventually and the back lash is gonna hurt.  

    You know what they say, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again"

    They capped their long term plan with Bush... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Richard in Jax on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    so what do they expect? After maneuvering and power shifting the American political scene for 30 years to get where they wanted to be, when close they pick G.W. Bush as a keystone? That speaks volumes about them. They just don't get it.

    Krugman (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    chimes in on the Republican meltdown, HERE.

    that's not quite right (none / 0) (#28)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    Clearly, he lacks either the conviction or the courage -- or both -- to take sides unequivocally, at the very momemt when the times and circumstances demand it.

    In short, he appears to hedge his bets here ...

    heck, the piece comes from CounterPunch.org, where virtually all published screeds must push the envelope to the very fringe of American political discourse.

    This statement says it all. (none / 0) (#40)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    "right-wing conservatives and Republican political leaders" view themselves as "the legitimate rulers of the United States and the world."  I wonder where this comes from?  When Bill Clinton was elected, Bill Bradlee and his wife Sally Quinn and their friends were livid.  According to Lyons and Conasen, they couldn't accept BC (a hick from Arkansas) waltzing into Washington and becoming the "big show"  It was their town after all.  They never changed their tune either, even after watching Bill build the country up and then Bush destroying this country.  They would rather trash the Clintons and the left wing took it up as well.  Elitism is the flaw, I fear.


    Ben Bradlee (none / 0) (#44)
    by daring grace on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    and yeah, he and Sally Quinn were (are?) pretty comically nauseating in their presumption of themselves as Washington power elites.

    Although former senator, basketball star and prez candidate Bill Bradley did endorse Obama too. I don't recall him opposing the Clintons with quite the same venom that Bradlee/Quinn did, but maybe...

    Parent

    I meant Ben Bradlee of (none / 0) (#45)
    by hairspray on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    the Washington Post.  At least I got the last name spelled right.  This had nothing to do with the basketball star, however, now that you mention it I did hear that he hated Al Gore as well as the Clintons and was instrumental in getting Obama moved up ahead of the pack.

    Parent