Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRobin Hood Republicanism?
Only months after the 2008 primaries, most Americans probably don't remember Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. But that doesn't mean the conservative populism they championed during their campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination is as fleeting as their dark-horse candidacies.
Since rank-and-file House Republicans began criticizing October's Wall Street bailout, a growing faction of the GOP has been channeling the country's rage at Corporate America with us-versus-them rhetoric and appeals to economic patriotism. And they are getting help from a Democratic Party whose actions often imply subservience to Big Money.
Recall that the majority of House Democrats voted to ratify the bank bailout, and the majority of House Republicans opposed it. Recall, too, that Democratic Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is pushing to throw more no-strings-attached cash at Wall Street, while Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., makes headlines with calls to nationalize the banks.
Conversely, when Republicans tried to prevent bailout and stimulus money from subsidizing job outsourcing, Democrats blocked their amendments and President Obama criticized such "Buy America" laws.
Now, Newt Gingrich is trying to capitalize on the contrast, insisting that the GOP can recast itself as the party of the little guy. Summing up his thoughts during an analysis of recent Democratic legislation, he said: "If in fact it's terrific for Citibank and GM, but bad for small business, then it's an elite bill -- it's not a populist bill."
To be sure, there is a vaudeville quality to all this.
Gingrich is not only the House Speaker who made business lobbyists an official cog in the legislative process. He's the Washington careerist who has spent his post-government life as an insurance industry mercenary paid to derail serious health care reform, and his "populist" panacea for righting the economy is a proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax, which primarily hits the super-rich. More broadly, while many Democrats joined in the kleptocracy, the Republican Party was the primary force behind almost every regressive tax cut, crony contract, rigged trade deal, deregulation scheme, corporate welfare handout and "elite bill" that became law over the last three decades. The idea that the GOP's Nottingham Sheriffs have genuinely become Robin Hoods might be plausible in a burlesque subtitled "Men in Tights" -- but this is real life, not a Mel Brooks spoof.
Then again, politics is theater of the absurd, featuring everything from a draft dodger posing as a Top Gun pilot to self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" repeatedly voting for deficit-expanding tax breaks. And as the GOP regroups for the mid-term elections, party leaders know that Americans' memories are short during a recession and that rhetoric can substitute for reality in a campaign. They also understand the electoral power of economic populism, even as an appeal to base Republican voters.
During the presidential primary, for example, Huckabee won eight conservative states thanks to his speeches calling Wall Street CEOs "criminals," demanding Americans get the same health care as members of Congress, and criticizing unfair trade policies. Meanwhile, Paul attacked "corporations on welfare" who are "dumping all the bills on Main Street" -- and he raised a whopping $34 million, mostly from individual conservative donors.
For this bombast to become a cohesive political program, rebel Republicans will have to do battle with the country clubbers that still control their party -- and to date, those rebels haven't been willing to wage such an explicit fight. However, should Democrats collude with the very corporate interests that the nation is so angry at -- say, if they obstruct proposals to toughen financial regulations -- they will create the incentive for an internal Republican war to explode. And when the smoke clears, the GOP could have a much different image - one that revives their political prospects for years to come.
26 Comments so far
Show AllThose things which liberals support: unions, livable wages, consumer protections, and so forth are the things which prevent small businesses from starting – apparently because they are actually scalpers intent on ripping off both their workers and their customers. Those things which conservatives support: lower taxes, small government, big military, and so forth are the things which small business wants – but they seem to dense to grasp that this will benefit the big players more than themselves.
America is going to have to face the fact that class is what politics is all about and that Tom Paine was disdained by the framers of the Constitution, so he went to assist the French Revolution. The revolution got bad advice from its physiocrat economists, a situation which Karl Marx sought to address following the theories of Adam Smith. It is Marx’s neo-Jacobin politics that are the gateway to a better political order. We turned ourselves over to this dismal future when we failed to follow up on Lenin’s lead in 1918, but pride ourselves that our model was better because we ran the Soviets off the road.
ClassAct February 27th, 2009 7:15 pm, thanks for that evaluation, uh, comrade, but I'd take exception to this:
"Those things which liberals support: unions, livable wages, consumer protections, and so forth are the things which prevent small businesses from starting – apparently because they are actually scalpers intent on ripping off both their workers and their customers."
I know several people who run small businesses and used to have one myself. 'Unions, livable wages, consumer protection, and so forth' aren't what crimps starting or maintaining a small business. Unequal taxation and laws favorable to large corporations are the biggest problems. Despite what Republican politicians babble to the contrary, they do not support legislation that helps entrepreneurs or small businesses -- invariably, they are on the side of the big corporation.
Ah yes! Robin Hood and men in tights. Republicans in tights? Rush in tights? Eeek! No thank you.
Huckabee and Paul are two very different people. I hate to dishonor Paul by putting him in the same category as Huckabee. Huckabees populism was with fundamentalist Christian Republican base voters, the same group Sarah Palin rallied. Paul, on the other hand, has been libertarian. It is amazing how Paul is probably the most ardent supporter of small government and disciplined spending, yet he has been marginalized by his own party. He is even pro life and the pro lifers have not warmed up to him. His appeal was to independent and cross over voters.
Maybe REVERSE ROBIN HOOD fits the Republicans better, stealing from the poor and middle class to give to the super rich. The problem with characterizing the Republicans right now is that they are in transition. Transition to what? I don't know. The formula of pandering to the fundamentalist Christians has clearly been shown not to work anymore. They are copy cats of the Democrats in trying to show more diversity with Jindal and Steele. They are currently trying to portray themselves as small government - disciplined spending people, yet their track record over two terms of the Bush administrations is horrific by both standards. They seem to have become simply the party of "NO." And when people ask what does the Republican Party stand for and the answer will be a big fat "NO" - it isn't going to get them re elected.
"should Democrats collude with the very corporate interests that the nation is so angry at -- say, if they obstruct proposals to toughen financial regulations -- they will create the incentive for an internal Republican war to explode. And when the smoke clears, the GOP could have a much different image - one that revives their political prospects for years to come."
Fight it here:
http://accountabilitynowpac.com/
Um, I remember Ron Paul. He was the only candidate who predicted our crisis, told us how and why it happened, and suggested real change to get out of it. If you don't "remember" Ron Paul you should spend the afternoon watching him speak on YouTube. You will be pleasantly surprised.
Too bad Ron Paul wasn't made Sec. of Treasury, but he makes too much economic sense and has fiscal, integrity.
Too bad Ron Paul wasn't a champion for racist vigilante border control militia men... I think he would reach a broader base otherwise...
Paul Revere
The way cabinet appointments are going it may not be too late. Wait....he isn't qualified, he didn't cheat on his taxes.
That's why the Libs (and Neo-Cons) love Keynes - "Spend as much as you want whether you have any money or not! Spend on credit if you're broke! It's good for the economy."
Dammerung February 27th, 2009 12:45 pm, John Maynard Keynes, of course, never said anything like that. And Keynes' theories on government spending helped bring the nation out of the Great Depression.
If you'd like to have some idea of what you're talking about, I suggest you read:
"The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
by John Maynard Keynes
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/index.html
"Against Rigid Rules -- Keynes's Economic Theory"
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpma/0503018.html
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
"A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
The Fairness Doctrine was mortally wounded yesterday and is on life support today.
With this inconvenient regulation practically buried the Republicans will be able to use their t.v. and radio superiority to cast themselves as Superman if they choose.
We'll be hearing a lot about populist republicans, clean coal, Iran's WMDs and yummy GM corn.
And we won't be hearing any opposing viewpoints.
The greatest threat to this country is that the only "news" capable of reaching tens of millions daily is 100% in the hands of the corporations.
Yesterdays' 87-11 vote (Yes, it received overwhelming support from the "opposition party") basically buried any chance of democracy returning soon.
And you probably didn't hear about this important story on any newscast!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JG0PO4
Cygnus-X1-isaHole, you are joking right? TV is rightwing? Last I saw TV, the press, and all radio except AM, voted about 85% for Obama. Obama was sold to the USA as a "progressive." The only outlets true conservatism and "rightwing" views have is AM radio and the internet.
chinesedemocracy February 27th, 2009 3:49 pm, how do you know how 85 percent of the media voted, especially "TV, the press, and all radio except AM"? Do you have a reputable source for that claim, or did you hear it on AM radio?
Obama sold himself; the media simply covered his campaign. The same option was open to McCain, and he got plenty of coverage.
You must have missed Fox news on TV!
*snark*
Because the GOVERNMENT is the best authority on what constitutes "fairness."
Dammerung February 27th, 2009 1:27 pm, your dog is chasing the wrong scent here. The Fairness Doctirne simply says an opposing viewpoint be presented, not the 'government' viewpoint, and it doesn't necessitate that such opposing viewpoint be presented in all broadcasts at all times.
Who decides what constitutes an "opposing viewpoint?" You know what I'd like to see? Every time Obama speaks about his Crusade in Afghanistan, pull a local Taliban commander out of his village and stick him on CNN and allow him to explain his reasons for fighting the American occupation. Now THAT would be worth watching.
Dammerung February 28th, 2009 5:48 pm, the exchange we're having right here would constitute two opposing views. It's not that hard to figure out.
Great idea about the Taliban commander -- who would decide the translator?
Let's say you have someone saying taxpayers should give the government $1 trillion for bank bailouts. And another person saying taxpayers should give the government $5 trillion for bank bailouts. Are those really "opposing" views?
Censorship by any name is bad. But I believe the House is trying to accomplish it in an end run using the FCC.
I see the makings of a third party based on economic populism, drawing members from both the current Democratic and Republican Parties. Maybe it could be called the "Little People's Party."
"third party based on economic populism"
That is more than likely the one possibility of a real Third party in our country. The only one I believe.
Thomas More February 27th, 2009 10:25 am, it would take a billionaire like H. Ross Perot to bankroll it, set it in motion, and get enough media attention to be a viable alternative. (It would also help if the candidate wasn't quite as erractic as Perot.) I just don't see that happening by 2012.
As it was, Ron Paul, despite repeatedly winning online polls during the debates and collecting millions in campaign contributions, was frozen out during the primaries, receiving hardly any Big Media attention, and Nader and McKinney weren't even shadow blips on the corporate media radar.
Unless we have a massive economic collapse that Obama is unable to mitigate, there will be no third party in 2012 that's a true threat to the Democrats and Republicans nationally, although, if they're smart and use their money wisely, the Greens and Libertarians could make gains at the state and local level.
You know what, if this forces the GOP to actually start listening to the middle class people who normally vote for them and to advocate and represent them in congress I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. They sure as hell have not actually represented them for a very long time.
It would be then a fantastic incentive for the Democrats to make a serious attempt to also get back to their base.
A country where political parties are rushing to do what the people want is pretty much the kind of country in which I'd prefer to live.
racom40
repuglicans don't listen, repuglicans play politics. They should change the name to the 'chameleon' party, we will be what ever color you want us to be until the danger is past and we can revert back to our greedy selves.
Hear, Hear!! And I believe Sirota is more than correct on this. Stay on the present road and Democrats will hand the ammunition to Republicans to blow them to hell and back.