Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThirty Years Too Late: The Implosion of John McCain and the Demise of the Regressive Right
There are lots of good explanations for why John McCain is rapidly swirling down the toilet bowl into the sewer of political ignominy, but my all-time favorite was just published in the New York Times Magazine this week.
The article – "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain", by Robert Draper – gives an explanation for McCain's idiotic-to-the-point-of-embarrassing stunt last month, at the time when the economic meltdown was initially kicking into hyperdrive. McCain's response – to suggest cancelling the debate, ‘suspending' his campaign, and parachuting into Washington to heroically save the empire from the evil capitalist derivative speculators (uh, oops – yeah, that's right – the same ones he's been flacking for his entire career) – marked the beginning of his slide into historical footmarkery, right down there with the likes of Bob Dole and Lil' Danny Quayle.
But that wasn't actually the bit I had in mind for my favorite explanation of McCain's demise. Nor, for that matter, was it even the fact that this great ploy – soon to be enshrined in a place of pride within the Political Buffoonery Hall of Fame – was crafted by none other than Steve Schmidt, McCain's chief strategist. You might have thought that that alone was hysterical enough, given that Schmidt is a protégé of Karl Rove (though he apparently hates being labeled as such), and that these were the very same folks who had ruined McCain himself back in 2000, using the Atwood/Rove/Schmidt character assassination playbook.
So – lemme guess – you're thinking: "Ah, what sweet justice. There is a god, after all!" But it actually gets better. Here's why: according to the article, all this happened because the guy who John McCain picked to run his campaign once got the "smartest bit of political wisdom he ever heard" from – are you ready for this? – really? – wait for it now... none other than that renowned national genius, George W. Bush.
And what did Bush teach him, other than the value of "manning up" and "going all in" (I'm not making this stuff up) with stunts like McCain's little economic crisis bombing run, a sortie in which he managed to crash the sixth aircraft of his career? Now this – this – is the part I really like. Back in 2004, Bush, the only complacent guy in the room, calmly told Schmidt that he shouldn't worry that the boss's campaign appeared at the time to be falling apart. Why? Because, Bush averred, voters have an "accidental genius" by which they can sniff out the true character of a candidate!
Amazing. Of course, W (and who knew that was short for Wise One?) didn't mention the part about how swiftboating the shit out of your opponent, or disenfranchising droves of African American and student voters can also help to put you over the top when that good old voter intuition occasionally goes AWOL – like in 2000 and 2004 – just as W himself did for a couple of years when he was in the National Guard. And then of course there's always that little Supreme Court trick, too, when things get really difficult.
This is the guru to the guru who is running the McCain campaign? Okay. Well that certainly explains a thing or two.
One thing we've clearly learned from the Cringe Decade's nightmare of unmitigated regressive rule is just how incompetent these clowns truly are. It was clear to most folks – at least those still registering some measurable amount of synaptic activity on the monitors – that the right was, of course, lying absurdly about Iraq, about taxes, about Social Security, about prescription drug benefits, and about much, much more. And some people have even caught on to the deeper lie of the entire regressive movement – that it is not simply a misguided ideology whose policy prescriptions were disastrous, but rather that it is actually a deeply pernicious kleptocratic treason conspiracy hiding behind a rag-tag improvisation of ideological hodge-podge (such as, for example, the exquisitely appropriately named Laffer Curve), designed for the sole purpose of pretending to link whatever present conditions might exist to whatever predetermined policy outcome was long ago decided upon.
Clearly, for example, the administration made the decision to invade Iraq first, then went looking for justifications that could be used to market the war later. Paul Wolfowitz even admitted this in his "bureaucratic reasons" explanation for how they all agreed on WMD as the fear factor they'd use to sell the war. Another classic example came from Bush's advocacy, as a candidate during flush times in 2000, of massive tax cuts. By the time he got to the White House, however, the economy was headed in a recessionary direction, and yet he was still advocating the same remedy for the polar opposite economic condition. It was as if the guy had read the first three chapters of John Maynard Keynes in his college macro class, but never bothered to get to the rest. Much more likely, of course, was that he had been too drunk to read any of it, and wouldn't have been so inclined, anyhow, had he somehow miraculously sobered up for a day or two. I mean, why study when you can be practicing your cheerleading routines instead? And anyhow, who needs that academic nonsense, anyhow, either at Yale or in the Oval Office? The economic theory mumbo-jumbo was for Rove to figure out in order to direct the marketing roll-out, just as if it were some sort of plastic Thanksgiving photo-op turkey for the troops. Bush already knew the policy choice in advance, and he sure as hell wasn't going to let some pointy-headed ivory tower ideas or the cold, hard evidence from centuries of real-world experience dissuade him. I mean, what would be the point of a Bush presidency, anyhow, if it wasn't to hoover up every shred of wealth from the public commons, nailed down or (preferably) not? To govern in the public interest, perhaps? Pshaw! Yeah, right. That's a good one, dude.
But even Americans who thought regressives clearly to be liars or thieves might still have believed that they were highly competent, especially if you'd had your brain Luntz-framed long enough to believe that MBA CEO types are tough, skilled, administrative whiz-bangs (you know, like the guys at Lehman Brothers, AIG, General Motors, etc.). It was easy to mistake that sometimes, because normally they're very good at marketing and at winning elections. But this year, the right can't even begin to get that right. The McCain-Palin campaign is a pathetic thing to see these days. Such as it is, even. There hardly seems to be a single campaign anymore, as a candidate so stiff he makes Bob Dole (even the 1996 version) look like James Dean by comparison lurches from embarrassing attack to awkward teleprompter-read, even-more-embarrassing, attack. My friends. There hardly seems to be a single campaign anymore, as insiders scramble to save their reputations, leaking stories claiming that they were off smoking a cigarette somewhere when the campaign debacle hit. And there hardly seems to be a single campaign anymore, as every day McCain's running mate goes increasingly more native, leaving the reservation to begin her presidential campaign for 2012. All this might seem ungracious, but that's only because, in fact, it is. It sure ain't surprising, though. Any movement that builds its core ideology around the worship of an infantilist, developmentally-stunted, self-aggrandizement will inevitably wind up eating its young. It's not a matter of if, but when. And it's no longer even a matter of when, but now.
Politics is rife with ironies, and perhaps never so much as this particular cycle. In many ways, John McCain should actually be winning this race, notwithstanding his daily acts of circus buffoonery and his decision to place his campaign in the hands of someone so sharp he regards George W. Bush as a profound political sage. The public is really nervous these days, and a well-known and well-trusted leader with that m-word (I can't possibly hear it one more time) brand could really have made a case for being the sort of steady rock people crave in a crisis like the current economic meltdown. A different McCain might really have taken this in a run-away. But not this one. Obama has shrewdly tied McCain to Bush, but that isn't really McCain's problem. Rather, it's his being joined at the hip to Bushism, which is at its core Republicanism, which is at its core regressivism. That's McCain's problem.
The irony here is that, while McCain has proven to be a scary monster at many junctures of his life and career, I don't think he is at heart really a regressive in the mold of, say, Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell. In fact, having been savaged in 2000 by the ‘agents of intolerance' inside and outside of the Bush campaign, he actually really hated the SOBs, and with good cause. But McCain wanted – more than anything and for the entirety of his life – to be president, and he made a calculation that his best strategy for getting there was to make nice to the radical right, support Bush for eight years, and then run again as the heir apparent in 2008. What he evidently didn't consider in this sell-off of his principles to the lowest bidder was the possibility that he was hitching himself to a wagon that was headed over a cliff. Into a bottomless pit. Located on an imploding black hole star. George W. Bush is a human wrecking machine of historical proportions, second only to the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao (yet another way in which Bush is a two-bit hack – he couldn't even do genocide right). The good senator was only one of Bush's many victims, though McCain perhaps alone among them has the dubious honor of having been diddled by the Boy King not once, but twice.
Among the great ironies of this election is that had McCain adopted another strategy, he might have had a pretty good shot at the presidency. One possibility would have been to renounce the GOP and become a Democrat. He could certainly have argued, with a straight face, that he wasn't leaving the Republican Party, but that the Republican Party had left him. He might even have captured the Democratic nomination, and almost certainly would have destroyed a Mitt Romney or a Rudy Giuliani in the general election had he done so. Perhaps even more plausibly, he could have become an independent and run a third party campaign for president. McCain – like, say, Colin Powell – was one of the few Americans with the stature and reputation sufficient to pull that off, and it would in fact have suited his politics and temperament much better to have done so.
Instead, he tied himself to Bush, while Bush tied himself to the cement shoes of regressive politics and jumped off the bridge, taking down his own party and his party's presidential nominee with him (not to mention a million Iraqis, 4,200 Americans, Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Bar, Poppy and Jeb, along with many, many more folks foolish enough to allow themselves within his orbit). It's truly astonishing if you think about it. This little twirp's need to redeem himself after a lifetime of failure and insecurity has produced destruction of galactic proportions. In any case, McCain made the wrong choice, put ambition first, above all else (including, with the Palin pick, above country), and gambled that Bush wouldn't wreck the GOP brand before November 2008. Oops. By going to bed with the likes of George Bush, McCain definitely owns his own fate. And there's more than a little delight in watching a practitioner of these debauched politics destroy himself. He's stuck with a base that loves Bush and Bushism, all while trying to attract independents who are ready to hurl at the prospect of either. Every independent vote McCain might acquire – however implausibly, given his voting record (but then this is America, so anything can be sold) – by dissing Bush, means a Republican voter disenchanted. Likewise, every play to keep the base happy with some inane red meat about socialism or terrorism only simultaneously alienates still sentient Americans in the middle. The Palin selection epitomizes this dynamic. Whatever else he thought she might bring to the table (corruption charges, perhaps? shocking idiocy? disloyalty to the guy who made her?), part of the rationale for her selection was to do something John McCain was unable to do himself – namely, to get Republicans interested in the 2008 Republican presidential ticket. And so it did, but it has cost him dearly with just about every other voter, who look upon Palin with dropped-jaw astonishment, and McCain with deeply flawed judgement.
Meanwhile, nowadays George Bush is almost nowhere to be found. He is irrelevant to any policy discussions, and if he is even remotely semi-conscious, would count himself lucky to be off the radar screen of a country and a world filled with an anger and anxiety that is the direct product of his destructive policies. When right-wing commentator – and former press secretary for Newt Gingrich – Tony Blankley describes a Republican leader by noting that "The existing American president is a failed thing", you know it's all very, very far gone down the tubes. But notice how they all adored Bush when he was flying high. The current state of the Republican Party isn't just the product of a one-man demolition derby. This has been a carcinogenic genetic mutation masquerading as a mass ideology, and it's had a lot of adherents.
The great farce of the GOP, which soon became the tragedy of the nation and the world, was to actually govern. They would have been so much better off to retain their natural role as carping cranks, spreading disinformation at every turn, making up scandals for the other guys, proliferating and hiding their own, occasionally impeaching presidents. But they made the mistake of actually seizing power, after which an entire world could see what they're really about, the destructiveness of their policies, their breathtaking arrogance, as well as their astonishing incompetence at providing for the basic functions of governance. I suppose we can't entirely blame them for their own self-destruction. I mean, who knew that imploding economies, drowning cities, oceans of debt, disastrous wars based on lies, alienation of centuries-old allies, dismantling of Social Security, falling worker salaries, rising costs, diminishing healthcare, a massive terrorist attack while the president was on vacation, the national shame of torture, or catastrophic environmental disaster – who knew these would be unpopular policies?
The regressive movement – so deluded that they still like to think of themselves as conservatives – is on death watch now, and yet it doesn't know it, nor does it remotely begin to understand why. But the reasons – both proximate and distant – are plain enough to see. The immediate problem is that they ran a pathetic candidate against a great candidate. More importantly, they ran a slimy, Rovian campaign against a guy who knew how to fight back, and also had the guts to do so, and they presented it all to a national electorate that is frightened enough to no longer be willing to indulge foolery anymore. The proof of this is that John McCain might actually have the best night of any Republican candidate on Tuesday, as Democrats massively increase their majorities in both the House and the Senate, perhaps even gaining a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority, perhaps even giving Senate Minority Leader and major scuzzbucket Mitch McConnnell (from Kentucky no less!) his walking papers. And, as if that weren't proof enough, this comes after a similar blow-out in 2006, when the GOP got a "thumpin'", and lost control of both houses of Congress. And, to top it all off, voters don't even particularly like Democrats, and they sure don't like the current Congress, which is controlled by Democrats. It's rare for an American political party to get stomped two elections in a row, let alone by a generally disliked alternative party. You have to be screwing up really badly to do that, in a collective effort sort of way.
Which, of course, is exactly what we're talking about. Only regressives don't know it. They think their policies and attitudes are popular in America. They think George W. Bush's problem was that he wasn't regressive enough. If only he had invaded Iran as well as Iraq! If only he had deregulated Wall Street even more. If only he had encouraged more oil consumption and more carbon emissions. If only he had eliminated abortion rights. If only he had cut wealthy Americans' tax liabilities down to zero, shifting those burdens to the middle class. If only he had done to all of us what he did to Terri Schiavo's family. If only he had eliminated all government spending on popular programs. If only he had privatized Social Security and let Wall Street handle it. If only he had wasted even more Iraqis and more American GIs. If only he had let Osama bin Laden roam even freer, even longer. If only he had quadrupled the national debt, instead of merely doubling it. If only Exxon/Mobil had made even more than their all-time corporate record-breaking earnings, while the rest of us were unable to buy enough gas to get to work. If only Bush could have appointed more regressive justices to the federal bench, where they could find that we have no constitutional right to privacy, and who would make sure that corporate and presidential power trump the people's and the people's representatives' at every turn. If only there could have been more jobs lost on his watch. If only we could have seen wages fall lower. If only the country could have had its wealth more polarized so we could better emulate rotten banana republics. If only we could have been more divided politically. If only we could have made the world hate us more. If only more of our cities could have drowned. If only we could have hurtled toward planetary destruction even faster.
Hah-hah, right? Guess, what? It's only partly a joke. Most regressives earnestly believe in most of the items on the above wish list, and earnestly believe that they represent majority opinion in America. Seriously. I'm. Not. Kidding.
Fortunately, in this there is great hope for this country's recovery. For as regressives meet to lick their wounds – and I know of three such immediate post-election major summonings to the Council of Darkness already scheduled – they will be as oblivious to the cause of their demise as were their ancestors, the dinosaurs. Which means they will also be oblivious to any meaningful solution. Which, by definition, they would necessarily have to be anyhow, since the only real solution for them would be to pack up their bags, join the ACLU, and become liberals. I mean that quite seriously (and we are, in fact, already beginning to see the leading edge of that coming stampede), because, at the end of the day, the fundamental flaw of regressivism is regressivism itself. Their ideas – now explored in total, now fully tested in practice – don't work, and therefore aren't popular. They never were, in fact, popular, but a healthy dose of marketing genius applied to a narcissistic, selfish and willfully ignorant electorate was nevertheless enough to put regressives over the top time and again, starting with Reagan. Now, even that old black magic has ceased to work.
Thus, the real explanation for the regressive rout we are witnessing runs deeper than George W. Bush, and in fact goes to his very electoral success. People have seen what it means to put these criminals in charge and – despite the fact that the public actually doesn't know the half of it yet – they don't like what they see.
Likewise, the explanation for the regressive train wreck also certainly goes deeper than the pathetic figure of John McCain. But, in so many ways - stylistically and ethically, even more than politically - the McCain of 2008 has become the very living embodiment of the moral cancer hiding behind the sham ideology of free markets, strong national defense and obsessive sexual regulation. And he is being received accordingly.
A recent New York Times article described the senator's sentiments in the wake of his loss in 2000 to that scion of darkness - the ultimate child of privilege, history's all-time greatest legacy admittee to life - the guy who employed Rovian scorched earth techniques to take out not only a war hero opponent, but also a member of his own party. Despite this humiliating defeat at the hands of a patently inferior being, McCain could still hold his head high. "After his loss, he professed himself grateful, at the age of 65, for what might be left of his time. ‘I did not get to be president of the United States. And I doubt I shall have reason or opportunity to try again,' he wrote, but added, ‘I might yet become the man I always wanted to be.'"
Sadly, McCain was wrong on both predictions.
He did have the reason and opportunity to try again, and he seized them vigorously - though from the perspective of his honor and his legacy in history he would have been better off not to.
Because he also didn't become the man that he, or anyone else, would want to be. Instead, he hired the very same assassination team used against him in the 2000 election, and he employed their very same techniques against a decent and honorable opponent, whose great crime was peddling hope and justice to a battered and morally hungry American electorate.
And thus, instead of raising his party and country from the gutter of Bushism, John McCain dove down into it himself, with a literal and figurative vengeance.
He didn't become the man he always wanted to be. Instead, he became George W. Bush.
Whoever wanted to be that?
Not even George W. Bush.
63 Comments so far
Show AllOh David how I hope you are correct ("right" seems inappropriate here), but somewhere I saw where Obama is more in Wall Street's pocket than is (was!) McCain. Just suppose he not only turns his back on his benefactors but also does what he should (which is to reregulate them more along the lines of New Deal style government). Lets further suppose that Obama puts a muzzle and choke collar in the MIC and pulls hard to restrain and reign them in.
The last president to try those tricks was gunned down in Dallas on 11/22/63, as was his brother in LA in June of '68, and his son John-John (who was reputed to be a scrupulously careful pilot by those who knew both him and flyking)died in a plane crash under conditions that no prudent pilot would have ever attempted. Well, at least Teddy and Caroline Kennedy will live to see their endorsed candidate win.
The bastards of Mammon and the MIC don't forgive and don't forget and Barack is both educated and smart enough to know this--as is Hillary, and every other likely Democratic candidate. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is keeping his SS collar pins polished and Swastika armband at the ready to lead the dwindling faithful.
I bet that Alaska is dumb and Republican enough to reelect Ted Stevens, he will then either die or have to be replaced when it's time to get fitted with his dayglow orange jump suit with all the numbers on it, and Governor Sarah "Stupid" Palin will then appoint herself as his successor in the Senate.
Poet
good article if a bit wordy and hyper...but some interesting bits (this is america and anything can be sold)....by the way anais nin called and she asked that people stop quoting her
.So what do you have, a Ouija Board? By the by, its her name so its capitalised..Anais Nin to you....Sorry about your problem.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
To the Nebraska post, I also live in NE. and I feel like a closet Democrat. I have had several conversations with my Republican friends about what is going on in this country, but they don't see it. They attack Obama as a Muslim, Anti-Christ, ( I said that name was already taken by Bush) how scared they would be if he gets in etc. I told them I'd be scared if McCain does especially with Sarah. God help us if she ran the country!
I guess they don't care what shape the country is in. I know if Obama losses because of voter fraud or whatever the Republicans do to steal the election, I will never vote again.
If people can vote for an idiot and crook twice, there is no hope for the rest of us.
They attack Obama (& Democrats) for the wrong reasons. Actually, the reasons to say NO to Obama are the same ones to not vote for Republicans: corporatism, imperialism-militarism, and exceptionalism. They hinder real progress and oppress the whole world. They both kill people and are terrorist organizations. I think there is no hope for us when voters are willing to vote for either party.
Obama will win if Republicans aren't allowed to steal the election AGAIN.
.The real question is who then wins if Barack Obama becomes President number 44? Is it you and I or is it the same old folks who always win.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Well, I hope you are right that McCain will lose. I find this article premature.
I am not so sure that Obama will win.
.Gee, and to think Hofstra was my second choice!?! I confess to being unable to wallow through this turgid piece of yellow journalism so I might have missed something or other....but I doubt it.
I thought, in the beginning, that John McCain was simply the chosen sacrifical lamb in an election that was long ago decided on the ineffable incompetency of the Bush administration. But , as the campaign and Obama's slippery altering of his stances unfolded, coupled with his campaigns refusal to share his incredible largesse with any democrat running anywhere else in order to achieve that magic number sixty in the Senate, I began to think otherwise.
Just as in 2000 and 2004 the democrats are trying to salvage defeat from the jaws of victory, and they quite possibly may succeed! I give them their due, though, it must be really ,really difficult to speak truth to the electorate when one's first priority is not to piss off the corporations that run your party and your govt.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
RIGHT WING IDEAS AND POPULARITY DEAD? UH, I DON'T THINK SO, GREEN...
"Right wing "ideas – now explored in total, now fully tested in practice – don't work, and therefore aren't popular. They never were...popular, but a healthy dose of marketing genius applied to a narcissistic, selfish and willfully ignorant electorate was nevertheless enough to put regressives over the top."
So - now that it appears a Democrat stands a good chance of being elected, Mr. Green deliriously twitters that the right will be routed electorally and the "ignorant" electorate will henceforth see clearly that their ideas have failed and are destructive.
1) As LawyerAlex notes, "Obama's lead is appallingly slender, indicating that nearly half of our fellow Americans still don't get it."
2) Green fails to analyze the deeper forces that have led to the rise of the right in the first place: to name a few, a weakening of the New Deal coalition due to the decline of big industry and industry-based unions; a consequently atomized labor force w/o the 'collective consciousness' of the worker-management relationship; the real failures of the right-wing-handicapped liberal welfare state to enact Western European-type social programs (which enervates the liberal part of the electorate, and turns the right wing part against 'big govt'); and, behind that, the historical weakness of the left and 3rd parties in the U.S., and the resulting destruction of the Old Left during the McCarthy Period.
The right will obstruct and ridicule both liberal and progressive programs. Without issues of social class in politics, 'cultural politics' and anti-Washington and anti-'elite' attitudes will continue to flourish, incited by the massive right wing apparatuses.
If Obama is, indeed, elected, it will be a respite - a slowing of the right wing direction of the country - where progressive forces might reorient themselves after 8 (or 30, dpnding on your view) years of the worst administration ever, and think about the problems and possibilities of acting now.
Why are you insisting that Obama isn't part of the right? His voting record and pledges of support for imperialism, corporatism, exceptionalism and militarism certainly indicate right-wing tendencies.
Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights
October 31, 2008 11:25 AM
ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
What a hypocrite. She cries over first amendment rights and then criticizes the media for exercising their first amendment rights. What a whiner and fascist.
No one is stopping her from speaking out, but it appears she wants the media to lose THEIR right to speak out about her negative campaign and lies. This woman gets dumber by the day.
She also said Democrats don't know how to protect this country. It was under Republican rulership that 9/11 occurred. What a pathetic woman.
One problem, as I see it is the issue of labels. Just like religions, once we start to label groups of people, we erect walls that keeps us from truly understanding each other. I have many conservative friends and family. As a group they may seem scary, but as individuals they want the same things as us liberals want. I have had long conversations with my Brother-in-law (a dyed-in-the-wool Republican) and even though we don't agree on many things, he respects my ultra-liberal view points, and we understand that each of us just wants the best for our families, our country and our world. Our approaches to those ends are black and white. The views that we have, have been formed by our up-bringing, and experiences, and no amount of mindless sound-bite quality conservative-bashing will reverse that. The only antidote is discussion and to get people thinking and talking.
Good points here. We need to get over the cult of personality - which is easily manipulated and used against us - and look deep into the system that keeps "We the People" out of gas and stranded, while "they the corporations" rob us blind, of our freedoms as well as our capital (both social and monetary). It's time for a populist agenda, free of the corrupt two-parties.
Vote Nader, 08. Send a message. We're onto the corporate/government scam.
I really like DMGs clear, humorous and hopeful articles. I hope he is right about the complete break-down of the Republican Party and that it will continue after the election. I hope that the Republicans won't have the opportunity to re-group after they lick their wounds but that there will be enough 'civilization' and 'voter education' in America after 2008 that they won't even try for another chance any more. I really hope they are on their way out, permanently.
But, that said, it means that there will be still a lot of work to do after the election. If there will still be 40 Republican Senators present, it means that these will be battlegrounds for the next elections. There are still a lot of states that vote 'solidly' for McCain. And it is also time for a purge in the Democratic Party itself: there are simply too many Democrats who find it easier to identify with their Republican counterparts than with their voters. I hope that Barack Obama does not say (like Bill Clinton) that 'we will have to collaborate with them' (Republicans) but that he seizes any opportunity to ridicule them and marginalize them even further. And I hope that generally the U.S. will democratize further, opens up the democratic debate and allows other parties than the two corporate ones a fair chance to participate in elections.
When the Republicans lose the election, well, it's fine to celebrate, but the real battle for transformation, for change, for truth-telling only begins.
FOX news and a biased corporatist news media will still exist. We will have a President & congress that has supported Bush again and again & promises to continue many of the egregious poilicies. Obama will be a collabarotionaist, which will inevitably mean RIGHTWARD. Conservatives have always excelled at opposition, even when it is hypocritical. Expect the kind of nonsense rhetoric thrown at Obama by the media - the same kind of boogieman rhetoric that Democrats always engage in, too, btw. Expect 2012 to be a repeat, with an even worse conservative threat thrown at us. Expect disillusion, disappointment & shattered hope for change.
Irrational stupidity is a disease.
Identify the pathogen.
Herd mentality.
.Comfort trumping conscience!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Greed !
Only in America, could the religious Regressive Right wing Republican Party, deregulate our financial systems , put the country into 10 trillion dollars of government debt,bail out their corporate cronies buddy's, lie and brain wash an entire nation into supporting the war or else you are anti American, setup 250000 spys across the country , replace the Constitution with the Patriot Act, force the 6 major media networks not to report real news,
And , then have the arrogance to claim that they don't understand the way liberals think, liberals scare them.
Liberals are the only kind of people that not only put up their ignorant crap,
but are not frightened by their efforts to try and covert the world into bible thumpers.
For we are the light of freedom, free thought, liberty and justice.
Live and let live.
Without us Liberals, you would have a bunch of war mongering, religious fanatics trying to convert the world to Democratic Christianity.
We all know how well thats working.
BornFreeMen
I agree with much of the article, but I wouldn't be so quick to write the obituary of the regressive radical Republican redneck religious right. The kinds of people that think the universe is 6000 years old, that most of modern science is wrong, that global warming isn't occurring and that Jesus wanted them to enrich the rich, impoverish the poor, make war wantonly, torture people, torment gays and force women to have unwanted children are patently impervious to reason. The disasters they have wrought on the world are still unfolding, yet they're pontificating as if their theories were sound and they had all the answers. Obama's lead is appallingly slender, indicating that nearly half of our fellow Americans still don't get it.
Alex
Sioux Rose
ALEX: Good post, as usual. Here's a thought as to why they maintain their insulated tunnel vision. Years ago when Phil Donahue had his talk show, the topic of child molesters was explored where individuals so-inclined spoke behind screens to disguise their identities. What gave them the courage to ACT on these sinister drives was a community of tolerance for such activity, and via the Internet they were able to find each other. It's the same with the persons you mention. The huge megachurch congregations taught to say the same things, sing together, wear similar clothing and work to maintain matching front lawns find normalcy in their numbers. Convinced by their pastors that they are among "The saved," they feel it's the rest of us who are sinners with much to atone for. The spiritual arrogance of their positions would be amusing if it was not so downright dangerous for its completely heinous disregard for anyone outside their flocks. (Those TRULY moved by the works of Jesus would probably never find solace in such congregations, or countenance their divisive beliefs.)
Simply stating that I am not supporting Obama and the reasons WHY has gotten me into trouble with: a buddhist group; an atheist group; and a country music star's yahoogroup! In each case, I have simply stated Obama's VOTING RECORD and been pretty much tarred and feathered! The Buddhist list was the most interesting: post after post praising Obama led me to write a post as to why I would not vote for him and to lay out his voting record. Perversely, I was told I was being "political" (!) but their support for Obama was somehow not political! The hypocricy is astounding!! They don't want to know his voting record - he's their savior!
I like Dr. Green's style: enlightening yet entertaining, concise and, because his thoughts dovetail with my own, true. (We Poli Sci majors are in awe of anyone who actually got a job in the discipline!) Still, the big question remains unanswered: Are these Republicans lying or simply telling the truth as they know it? Looking at the body of their work, they don't seem intelligent enough to have developed and carried out any of the complex conspiracies they're charged with. If their truths are as skewed from reality as they appear to be, why are our Republican friends still allowed to walk freely among us let alone vote?
Busque la verdad!
The USA's regressive right began at the first (and only) constitutional convention, in Philadelphia, with a combination of mostly authority-worshipping Hamiltonians and ethically unrepentent/economically-invested slave holders.
This initial regressive right managed to force concessions of democratic principles from the other, more-humanist-inclinded founders which, for whatever seemingly justified reasons they were made at the time, have only haunted us as a people since.
The charter concessions, made to the right by early sell-out progressives, resulted in a constitution that not only needlessly distanced democractic decision-making procedures from their supposedly-intended control source, 'the People' (i.e., at that time: white, male property owners), but also made the legal overthrow of the moral insanity of slavery impossible without civil war -- the two resulting charter features being interwoven into the document by hardly-unrelated motives.
America's regressive right (is there any other kind of 'right,' really?) has always, except perhaps during the Civil War, maintained uninterrupted, underlying control of both the US government and, via largely unregulated capitalism, the normative development of both mass-political and pop-culture consciousness.
In terms of its strutting, open visibility, the right has of course been episodically (and voluntarily) shadowed by momentary, less-than-civil-war populist uprisings, such as the women's suffrage movement, FDR's New Deal safety-valve programs, and the Civil Rights Movement of the mid 20th century.
But, being bred-in-the-bone from the outset, America's rightist political, cultural, and moral values, have no more way of imploding within our body politic than would the skeleton in your physical body implode --with you still alive as the same, basic John or Mary Jones.
If the framework of what we Americans have always haug our social and economic flesh on, can ever change enduringly, it can only change like a physical body's wrongly built, fatally weak skeleton might:
Slowly; from within; bone by bone, with an entirely new diet of healthly skeleton-building foods.
Such a transformation apparently happens within some nations' body politics (e.g., look at what Sweden used to be centuries ago - vs. what it is today.)
So, my point is not that progressive/humanist transformation can't happen in the USA, only that it has never happened here before in any way that's lasted -- and that it certainly can't be said to be happening now just because the right's underlying control has momentarily retreated to a tactically-advised shadow.
As I think any honestly self-reflective individual will admit: strictly personal transformation toward more socially humane personhood, is a very difficult process, just in itself. It requires dya to day tolerance of unpleasant self-consciousness, tolerance of emotional pain, plus an almost meta-worldly being-strength to defeat the physical and mental resistance to change that seems to be hard-wired in most of us human creatures. (I haven't done swimmingly by my own efforts, in this transformatice regard, nor have most of my otherwise dear and finely intended friends... but we all need to keep trying....)
On a national level, transformation to a more humane polity isn't necessarily qualitatively more difficult to achieve than enlightened change is for an individual, but it is qualitatively more difficult for nations to achieve a population of such in sufficent numbers.
Americans have, I think, special cognitive roadblocks to enduring humanist transformation (arguably due, more recently, to the ubiquitous drenching of our brains' circuitries in the false-realty promises of consumer-oriented advertizing.)
Which is partly why, even most US progressives, at this late date in our national decline, still find the surfacey progressive images of Obama's rhetoric more 'politically workable' than the deeper, more honest, truerly progressive, and more personally demanding analyses of a Nader.
Obama may, miraculously, cause some manner of real and durable change to at least structurally begin: I hope his election does.
But no progressive should be talking about the regressive right 'imploding.'
The right has done no such thing, and won't, at best, for a long time to come.
Sioux Rose
JJ APPLE: Interesting, honest post.
.Much truth but I wonder at an assessment of those who were, basically, revolutionaries and far sighted thinkers. Keeping in mind that our revolution was one of mostly wealthy land owners seeking individuality and freedom from a monarch, and not an uprising of the proletariat, I believe that they did rather well indeed.
That which besets this nation now, that which seeks to pollute the intent of the founders, should not be seen as a fault of those brave folks but rather should be laid at the door fo those who followed, directly , in my opinion, at those of us who fail in our individual duty to the process and to the evolution of that democratic mechanism wrought by our originators. Remember Jefferson cautioned us, who would follow him, that further revolution would certainly be necesary. Hamilton himself cautioned us to try dearly to hold onto what was created.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
In a world wholly under royal domination, the act of creating a Republic with a constitution which nowhere mentioned God as the source of authority was the ethical equivalent of regicide.
Of course the ruling class that promulgated it wasn't democratic; they were the makers of the first country to announce that the people were sovereign, not the anointed of Heaven; they were taking the first steps in which democratic thought would begin to grow.
The price to pay for being the first is being continually referred back to the origin, which has to be continually revised, as Lincoln revised it in through refusal to allow the Confederacy to live as a slave-owning republic next to the United States.
The latest revision of national memory is in the memory of we whites, who have collectively glossed over the fact that it was the force of federal power, coupled to the true threat of black revolution, that obliged the deep Southern states to capitulate to desegregation. Coupled with the intense educational project that followed WWII, in which so many small-town men came back to receive educations that cracked the reactionary upbringing, these political-historical developments created holes in the fabric of the right, without wholly undoing it.
But all the king's horses & all the king's men have never really put Humpty together since.
The shift forty years ago, though, was never thorough-going; it never penetrated beyond pockets. The current shift is seismic, and it's not articulated; but it is vaster, more complete, than that which produced current social mores.
Nader's analyses are more accurate; but they are fundamentally static analyses, and he proposes, as always, frontal assaults on his targets. But the targets are best defended at those points; they need to be flooded out by the populace. Nader & Naderites are bad strategists, and they fail to acknowledge that Obama does not recognize himself as master of the time nor the tide; his oratory is powerful because it addresses antinomies, but he himself is cautious, because when the force for true progress is unleashed, it can also be chaotic.
Absolutely brilliant post, i've never seen this particular angle on the process of the United States but it rings like a bell. Thanks!
Thanks for this post, I never thought of the Constitutional Convention that way.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
I know this man has a history of being a rotten egg since youth. However, I suspect McCain is suffering a gradual onset of Alzheimer’s. If he survives this election good or bad, I predict that, his health will directly plummet. There is no telling how much medication that this man is taking.
And my state is still staunch Republican although Obama may come close to winning one of the EVs in my state. Still, when Nebraska turns blue all the way, then it'll be a clear sign. Until then, Obama's about to face the ongoing conservative lunacy that's been in effect for 40 years.
A question I still desire to be asked of the two principal candidates by anyone in the media is, "would you support pursuing charges aganist possible crimes commited by members of the Bush administration including George Bush himself?"
If Obama is elected then there is a glimmer of hope for our democracy. "Justice for all" still remains lacking though.
Dream on. Too many still think Bush's only crime was "not winning" the war.
Sure, every comedian on prime time is kicking the guy now that his poll numbers are down. Still, there was plenty of evidence that he was full of it right after 9/11 but the media and the public danced along behind him. How quickly we forget how unpatriotic it was to not follow the Pied Pipers.
What I laugh about is that he didn't even realize that "Mission Accomplished" was correct. At that point the military had accomplished all it was capable of achieving. The military is designed to destroy (oops, I mean "defend") not to police or build nations.
"One possibility would have been to renounce the GOP and become a Democrat." Good ensuing explanation in that paragraph and the rest of your essay.
The idea is not far-fetched. By June, 2004, John Kerry had long secured the Democratic Party nomination and was rumored to be offering the VP spot to McCain on a national unity ticket. It sounds outlandish, but does anyone else remember this feature from 2004?
Oddly, at that same time, Bush was flying to Rome to give the Pope a medal for a photo op; their picture would run on the front page of 250 American Catholic diocesan newspapers. And Bush would win the Catholic vote to triumph over Catholic Kerry!
It has been a weird eight years. I'll be so relieved when Bush leaves office.
The "demise of the regressive right" is still on hold.
They have crawled out from under the soil they were buried under several times in the past. As with the latest rounds of serious international crimes, death, destruction, mayhem and the shedding of almost countless gallons of innocent blood; they are poised to retake what they loose in those elections they loose control of. They had control of 2000 and 2004 elections. They may not have it now, but then they may, and they just hide it well. The system, is controlled by money interests, and the politicians are simply "muppets"---and that means all of the politicians----Mr. Obama has received 30% of his financing from small donors-----some big money put up some big money to bet on a "pony". Only an absolute fool would think that they "money people" will let any politician do what they do not want done.
Taking into consideration the corruption involved in this political system, the one measure the people truly have at their disposal---is to hold the current "muppets" accountable for the crimes committed while they were "on stage". In other words make it such an unpopular prospect to be a "muppet", and then have the people hold you directly RESPONSIBLE-----you just might think very carefully what you do when you have so much power. Then again you could be like GW Bush, who believes that he has the "game rigged" in "his favor".....
Just for one example: GW Bush, and the many others just like him are very short on originality whether it be in actions or words or thoughts. They are truly "muppets" under the control of others.
If the American people do not take the control of the "muppets" "controllers" then take control of the "muppet".
If GW Bush and all of the member so this latest series of disasters, war, the economy,immigration ---------(it's a long list) were held responsible for their actions then others might decide to NOT be "muppets" or if they do become "muppets" they will think back to the film footage of GW Bush and "Co" on their way to long prison sentences. After all of their personal wealth is confiscated which would leave their descendants bereft of an inheritance. This is an important aspect of this approach---if you loose your fortune in/on the stock market---you have nothing to leave your descendants.
But some people believe that if GW Bush had not been born GW Bush with a sizable inheritance from Prescott Bush (look this one up on Google), he would be an inmate, on the "third strike your out" offense, for burglary of a hardware store while searching for paint to "huff"----. He would be turning sexual favors for candy bars in some Texas Dept. Crim. Justice---min security facility, or most likely the jail house snitch. He would not have been able to take a bus ride to Washington DC without close supervision, much less become the most powerful idiot on the planet.
The point is this. If people are not held responsible for their own behavior, then they will do whatever will provide for them the most benefits for the least amount of effort. Human nature is not that far from other primates. One Chimpanzee will steal from another if they think they can get away with the theft. If on the other hand they know that they may get more pain than gain---they are perfectly content to ignore the urge.
This society is one of the most complex in the world. They have more people in prison in the USA for drug crimes than for any other offenses; but allow some of the most disgusting criminals imaginable into the highest offices.
As for this Primate----on a deeply personal level---I must admit that ---I am not "above theft" however I am not cheap, and if I am accused of being a thief it will be for being the "thief that stole an entire continent---like the Americans". Now that is my kind of thief.
The Demise of the Regressive Right?
Not but a couple of months ago, just after the Republican convention, polls showed the Presidential race dead even.
Does that suggest a demise of any given ideology to you?
What great ideology does Obama bring?
Is it a rejection of the oppressive Patriot Act? No. Is it a rejection of the WTO and NAFTA and all the other abusive pro-corporate trade treaties? No. Is it an end to the misguided "war on terror"? No. Is it an end to the FISA law's authorization for spying on Americans? No. Is it the end of corporate welfare? No. Is it the elimination of big money from our electoral process? No. Is it the end of the repressive Commission on Presidential Debates? No. Is it the end of militarism? No. Is it the end of our unsustainable lifestyles? No. Is it the end of corporate influence in Washington? No. Is it the end of our centralized, corporate mass media? No.
There's no "demise of the regressive right." Obama is a rock star. He's a personality sweeping to victory. There's no there there. If ever we had a "pragmatic" candidate with no core ideology, Obama is it. Nothing will change.
The author has conflated a rejection of Bush, the man, with a rejection of imperialism, corporatism, capitalism and all the other "isms". There's very little evidence for any of it.
Four years from now, absent the Bush pinata, Obama will compete with the next personality the Republicans offer up. This time, Obama will be the incumbent and will be weighed down with four years of baggage.
That is ultimately what's wrong with voting "to win" instead of voting for real change. Winning elections, at least as they're currently run, is all about the techniques. It's all about popularity. It's all about avoiding major campaign blunders. It's all about kissing babies and complimenting the local sports team. Success is measured by electoral success and not by the promotion of a riskier, lead-rather-than-follow, message of meaningful change.
Obama will win but he has not campaigned on real change; only on the "change" slogan. Welcome one and all to corporate America, 2012. Who ya gonna vote for then?
Exactly. But why don't Obama supporters recognize this to be true? Why do we get all these pundits writing this nonsense? It's how they want it to be but it's false. FOX news is not going away. Obama's conservative agenda is not going away, either.
.Why indeed. The answer may be found in how closely tied these so-called pundits are economically to the success of the Democratic Party and the entire economic status quo. Third party ascendancy means a certain basic change to the way political business is done, the way corporate responsibility is perceived as well. Those who are very comfortable with the status quo become fearful of change that just might upset their comfortable life styles and access to power.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
It is simple.
They are either disingenuous or deluded.
Perhaps neither disingenuous nor deluded, matti November 2nd, 2008 5:46 am.
Every single thing that has been said about what Obama would do if elected is an assumption, an assumption usually made by someone supporting another candidate. In truth, you don't really know what Obama will do, any more than I do, but he has said he'll get us out of Iraq, start to fix the health care system, improve education, bring jobs back to Americans, and increase taxes on the wealthy. How do you know he won't be much more progressive than he's been as a candidate? In fact, you don't. FDR was not exactly a raving liberal when he ran in 1932 and Obama is trying to get elected as a black man in a white country -- should he come off as a leftist radical, as McPalin has tried to paint him?
We've already seen what has happened to Edwards, Kucinich, Nader and McKinney when they speak openly of a progressive agenda -- none of them, whatever their fine words, are going to have the power to change anything this election. Obama will because he faces the reality that you must first get elected to enact change; FDR understood the same thing.
One thing I do know: Even if he's a centrist, Obama will be better than the sure disaster that is McCain-Palin.
"Dick Cheney has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain"
That's what is called the Kiss of Death.
What a great article. It not only hits the nail on the head, it builds the whole house.
Lobo Gris
Excellent summary of the pathetic state of "The great white hope" of McSame and the "scorched earth" strategy of W the monster! A very comprehensive rant.
Sadly, Rethuglicans are more loyal than 99% of wives beaten by their drunken, meth enraged husbands. That straight republican ticket just seems to be in their DNA. "My daddy was a republican and so am I"! To admit that they have been wrong in making love to Dubyuh just seems to be beyond any honesty or self preservation they can muster. In my local CO news rag, the "I love Dubyuh" comments outnumber any other by 4 to 1. There is no hope for most of these people, and even more sadly, they still vote RELIGIOUSLY!
- (Pun intended)
"... the Demise of the Regressive Right"
... and the Birth of the Corprogressive Right... welcome to Obamadom.
DMG must be paid by the word.
If so, he's gotta be the wealthiest man in the world by now.
I guess this mess had to happen. People have to learn the hard way sometimes.
The first thing Obama must do is to fetter the corporate public opinion makers that will otherwise make his life hell. Re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine would help. Naming a liberal FCC Chief like Nader and removing corporate personhood would also.
Obama if you're listening, please DO NOT name conservatives to any post, particularly Republicans. If you do, you will lose any advantage that a mandate and a Democrat majority in Congress can give you.
Do the opposite of what Bush did and be as successful in establishing honesty, integrity and faith in government as Bush did in establishing corruption, cronyism and crime.
The best way to achieve this is to not fall into the tempting trap of naming conservatives to vital posts or retaining conservatives in those posts they now occupy.
As Bush appointed corporate and financial execs, you must name heads of environmentally and socially responsible organizations to government, cabinet and Supreme Court posts.
I think he will name at least one to his cabinet. One guess is he will keep Gates in as sec. of war, er, defense.
The paragraph in which you describe the regressive's wish list of things they would like to see happen is what has frightened me about the last couple of years of Bush. I'm just so happy that Bush has been preoccupied by so many other messes that he has not had time to bomb Irag. I don't know how many times I have commented to my wife that perhaps we've dodged another bullet for every hurricane or natural disaster that has occurred that has taken the place of one of the Bush self-made catastrophes.
The continuing economic disaster hopefully will take up the rest of his administration and allow us all to sleep a little better albeit with lighter wallets. I believe we can all live with that. I sure beats a potential nuclear holocaust.
Sioux Rose
MAHONEY: You meant bomb Iran, right?
Why? Because, Bush averred, voters have an "accidental genius" by which they can sniff out the true character of a candidate!
Really? Well then, "the voters" sure fucked up when it came to George Wanker Bush. Unless, of course, a lying, murdering, thieving, swaggering, drunken moronic punk and snake in the grass was what they really wanted all along. I'll believe that.
Mordechai Shiblikov November 1st, 2008 2:38 pm, maybe Junior was right, but not in the way he intended. The 'accidental genius' here was letting the neocons have their way and showing the public that selling the nation off to the highest bidder while operating the most corrupt and incompetent government in modern history is not the best method for running a country.
The 1920s had Coolidge-Hoover and "the business of America is business"; since Reagan we've had the Grover Norquist nightmare of "The business of government is to keep the government out of business (except when we need a no-bid contract or tax break)." Both worked to, predictably, wreck the economy, but we seem to have to keep relearning that lesson every few generations. Incredibly, rather than hiding at home under his bed in shame, Norquist, et al, are still out there on the aft deck of the Titanic, talking up the benefits of traveling via the White Star Line, as the bow slides into the water. They are the definition of functionally insane.
I'll believe it too.
There was The Age of Reason. There was The Age of Enlightenment. We are currently living in The Age of Stupidity. We were served up Conservative Compassion steamed to perfection with Complete Corruption. The Mass Media spoon fed it to us from a plate of plastic garbage and it was eaten, digested and declared very tasty by a public whose taste buds had dried up from boredom. A New Age of Awakening would be welcome but that would take the dedication of everyone to search out and insist on truth and transparency in our Democracy, from the top to the bottom and everywhere in between. We have a right to insist on these basic principles, it was given to us by the documents on which this nation was founded.
Age of Manipulation. Up is down. Good is bad. Confusion and lack of correct knowledge fuels ignorance and incorrect thinking. Fear based knee jerk reactions. People not spending enough time in looking at the situation and going thru the possible reasons as to why something is messed up.
age of consumption
And we were consumed.
Time to mail out a copy of Idiocracy to every GOP supporter!
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
Why would that hinder them?
Well they're the kind of people who seem to think everything on a TV screen is true. Why not?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.