The Party Is Over
Poor Troy Senik.
He's a Republican, so everyone knows he's stupid.
He used to write speeches for George Bush and Newt Gingrich, so everyone avoids him at social gatherings.
And now all his clients are getting handed their pink slips, so he's gonna have to start earning his living the honest way for once.
But that's not even the worst part of it.
The worst part is that just he published a piece entitled "Republicans Agonistes", which ended with this paragraph: "The time for the Republican Party's existential crisis is coming to a close. Now is the hour for a new generation of innovative, optimistic, and principled leaders to see this moment for what it is - an opportunity to renew a proud movement and lead it towards future victories."
Then, the very next day, Arlen Specter showed us precisely where the party's existential crisis really is at, after all. (Hint: It's not exactly "coming to a close".)
Indeed, not only is this meltdown not ending now, it is only just beginning. But I will give Senik credit for one thing. He has correctly labeled this as an existential crisis. He's right about that. This is no garden variety rough patch in the road. This could well spell the end of an institution in American politics that has been around since Lincoln, and this country's national party structure of the same vintage.
Mockingly, Senik opens his essay with a wee taste of right-wing sarcasm: "The Republican Party is dead. Haven't you heard? Despite winning seven of the past 11 presidential elections and controlling at least one house of Congress for 13 of the past 15 years, our salad days are over. The ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama has shipwrecked the GOP in perpetuity. Those of us who fought the good fight will now have to go back to country clubbing, Bible thumping, and war mongering in the private sector. To add insult to injury, we're the only major institution that has failed in the last year without receiving a generous taxpayer bailout."
Heh-heh. Those regressive cats sure are good at comedy, eh? Now if only they could do it on purpose, maybe they'd be getting somewhere with their show business careers.
Senik goes from there to chronicle all the previous near-death experiences of the Party - 1964, 1974, etc. - that turned out to be greatly exaggerated reports of the GOP's demise. The point being, of course, that this kind of thing happens all the time. He therefore argues that, "The question for Republicans, then, is not if they can come back, but rather when and how."
That's actually quite wrong, though. The real question for Republicans is, instead, whether they will survive as a rump regional party of maniacal Troglodytes, or not at all.
Everything is going against the Party right now, ranging from demographic shifts to leadership vacuums to loss of control of every institution of American government to the massive popularity of the new president from the other party. But these are small potatoes compared to the two real problems that are rapidly dragging the party toward the precipice of oblivion.
The first monstrous problem for the GOP is that they're so good at winning elections. Or at least they were. They'd have been great if only they hadn't actually governed. Had they just stayed over there in the weeds, carping incessantly about taxes, weakness abroad, taxes, homos, taxes, spending and - did I mention taxes? - they could have gone on forever getting enough votes to continue on as America's Perpetual Pain in the Ass Party. Unfortunately, though, they made the mistake of actually winning. They got so good at sliming their opponents and stealing elections and employing fear to get votes that, the next thing you knew, they were actually in charge.
Big, big mistake. Americans have seen what Republican government looks like. It's seriously ugly, and that's even when it doesn't produce a crisis. All the more so when it does produce one, and far more yet when it's six or seven, simultaneously.
I know, I know, it's weird. But, just the same, Americans just don't seem to want economies plummeting, debts exploding, cities attacked by terrorists, other cities drowning, endless wars based on lies, cronyism, nepotism, looting, environmental disasters, alienated allies, wrecked national reputations, or snarling vice presidents on their television sets. Nor do they want congressional legislation, enacted by a president flying across the country to sign the bill, that tells Americans how to handle their individual family medical tragedies. Like I said, it's weird. I guess Americans are just quirky that way.
Well, okay. Then it would seem like the logical thing for the GOP to do would be to move away from the baggage of its radical albatross and return to the days of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, back when the right wing of the party was considered scarier than a 3-D Hollywood horror movie even by the other members of the same party. Well, it would seem. But, you see, that's the GOP's second gigantic problem. It cannot do the one thing that could possibly save it.
Indeed, not only can it not, but it doesn't want to. And not only doesn't it want to, but it doesn't even get that it must, or even should, if wants to have any hope of surviving. It's truly amazing. I've talked to, and read pieces written by, regressives who seriously argue that the GOP's problem is that it hasn't been conservative enough. Indeed, I saw one young lady from the Heritage Foundation make the argument that neither George W. Bush nor William F. Buckley were real conservatives. That's pretty hysterical if you think about it (something regressives never want you to actually do). But consider the main programmatic commitments of the Bush administration: wars overseas, huge military expenditures, lopsided bias in favor of Israel, arrogant unilateralism towards the UN and all other countries, massive tax cuts, anti-gay legislation, Social Security privatization, deregulation, anti-abortion policies, blocking of stem-cell research, environmental degradation, massive expansion of the wealth gap, erosion of the separation of church and state, and so on.
Which of these, I'm curious, don't come right out of the contemporary conservative (pardon the obscene oxymoron there) play book? Sure, you could say that regressives are upset because Bush expanded Medicare (although the more accurate way to put it would be that he expanded the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies through the vehicle of Medicare), and that he doubled the national debt (which is kinda inevitable if you massively increase expenditures whilst slashing tax revenues; See Reagan, Ronald W., and the Tripling of the Debt). But let's be serious, shall we? No one can credibly argue that George W. Bush was not a conservative. No one, that is, except the certifiably insane freaks on the right, who, mercifully, are finally becoming again the laughingstocks they once were in American society, and for precisely this reason.
Nevertheless, they continue their relentless march to the Land of the Ludicrous. I mean, just how amazingly silly is it to claim that George W. Bush wasn't a real conservative? How insane do you have to have become to argue that this is why the party is losing elections? How completely bonkers do you have to have gone to prescribe a turn further to the right in order to do better from this point forward?
The Specter purge - and make no mistake, though it was his decision, it was no more 'voluntary' than the choice to exit a burning building - would represent the leading edge of a departure trend that would rock the Republican Party, except for one small problem: There is really hardly anything left of a moderate wing of the party anymore. Specter would be leading the disaffected droves out of the party, but there are none left to speak of, at least at the national level. It is not unfair to say the Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both senators from Maine, are the only remaining moderate Republicans in Congress today.
At least one of them is really unhappy, too. Snowe penned an article in the New York Times this week, entitled "We Didn't Have To Lose Arlen Specter", in which she vents a bit of her anger at the radical right for driving Specter and, a decade ago Jim Jeffords, out of the party. Specter's own announcement speech was even more hostile, and remarkably candid for a politician. He spoke clearly about how the Club For Growth and other orthodox elements of the radical right have made it almost impossible for center-right Republicans to survive in office. Even if they can survive the threat of a far-right challenger in the primary, or the indifference of the party base such as greeted John McCain last year until he brought on the Palin abomination, they are then too wounded to win in the general election.
Snowe takes aim at social conservatives for purifying the party right down to its unwinnable essence. But what is most remarkable is that she - an angry moderate - gets her party's crisis almost as wrong as the looney fringe. Reacting to the capture of the party by the social conservatives, she writes:
"It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, 'We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.' He continued, 'As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.'"
Quite laughable stuff, really. It's as if the only sin of the right has been its insistence on emphasizing abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research as key Republican issues. Imagine how far gone these people are when even their moderate champion, writing in anger about the far right, doesn't begin to address their core dilemma. Yo, Olympia, I have some really awful news to give you, to go along with the bad news you've already received. Here it is: You guys have been wrong on EVERYTHING!!
Do you really think, Senator, that if you just let up on abortion but continued to manufacture millions of unemployed homeless people out of the former middle class that you would start winning elections again? And do you really think that you would be allowed to let up on abortion by your party's base - the same nice folks who were getting ready to purge Arlen Specter - even if you could make that deal?
Do you really think, Senator, that if your party could somehow drunkenly stumble its way into a humane and science-based position on stem cell research at home, while continuing to lie its way into disastrous wars abroad, that the American public would rally to your cause? And do you really think your base of reactionary voters would let you do it, anyhow?
Is it really your belief, Senator Snowe, that if only the GOP would let the queers have their freakin' marriage certificates that the party could then continue to win elections on a platform of planetary destruction via environmental catastrophe? And do you think your lovely base of nice Christian conservatives would allow you to do this, anyhow?
What Olympia Snowe doesn't get is how far gone it all is now. And what she also doesn't get is how desperate the party is when it continues turning to Ronald Reagan to solve their problems, as if he were Jesus's kid brother.
More and more Americans - especially the young, tolerant, left-leaning ones - don't know Reagan from James K. Polk, and the GOP's constant appeal to worship at the shrine of Saint Ron strikes them as exactly what it is - living in the past.
And it's a mythological past, anyhow. Reagan raised taxes after he slashed them. He had a huge recession. He tripled the national debt. He signed a very liberal abortion bill in California. He sold missiles to Iran. He shredded the Constitution. He didn't defeat the Soviets and end the Cold War, though I must admit, he did kick ass on Grenada (right after the hundreds of Marines he had stuck in Lebanon for no reason got wiped out, of course).
What Reagan did best, if you're of the sort who falls for this kind of crap, is to talk happy talk about how good and right and powerful and moral we all are. But he didn't live that life himself, he didn't improve the country or the world with his policies, and nobody gives a shit anymore, anyhow. The degree to which the party faithful keep trotting this guy out like some deity is a perfect measurement of how little they actually have to offer. It's pathetic beyond belief, and it's no wonder those pesky elections keep going into the ‘L' column, one after another, with no end in sight whatsoever.
Of course, there is a silver-lining to having ‘irrelevented' yourself to such an extent that you now not only don't control any institution of government, but you are about to not even be able to muster the bare minority you need in the Senate to filibuster a bill and block its consideration. That's a pretty impressive trick, and the GOP is hardly done, I would say. To wit, they just lost a by-election in upstate New York where a Democratic candidate coming from outside the district, which leans heavily Republican, and having little help from either the president or the Democratic Party, nevertheless managed to beat the well-known Republican candidate who was fully backed by the national GOP and its clown chairman, Michael Steele. At this rate, my guess is that 2010 is going to be another blood-letting for the GOP, just like the last two.
But the silver-lining to these very stormy clouds is this: If actually winning elections and having to govern is the kiss of death for your party, then the GOP has at least been rendered to a place where it can sit on the sidelines and not continue destroying itself by actually making policy decisions.
Or, at least, not destroy itself quite so much. Its new job is little more than to criticize the other guys now in government. Whatever else you can say about Obama and the Democrats, they seem to be trying a bit to clean up the mess they've inherited, and they seem to be doing it rather gracefully, if half-heartedly, all things considered.
So what has the loyal opposition been saying? The president uses Teleprompters! He gave the Queen an iPod! He bowed to the Saudi king! He accepted a book from Hugo Chavez! Worse, still, he smiled when he shook the guy's hand!
Not so impressive, eh? These goons can't even do carping well.
They have no leaders, no constructive contribution to the debate other than shouting "No!", and now so little power that they can't even filibuster from the minority in the Senate.
This party is over.
And, surveying the wreckage of a once great country, not a minute too soon.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
24 Comments so far
Show AllDavid Michael Green,
In case you missed it, the Democrats just welcomed Mr. "Magic Bullet" Specter into its rakes. Does this indicate that Congress or the Senate is a two party system?
Either way, Washington is controlled by a plutocracy.
I wouldn't pronounce the GOP dead just yet. Its best hope: Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Their policies, except on a few social issues, aren't very different from Bush's. So the same bad governance we've had under Bush will continue under the Neocon 2.0 Democratic administration. The same disgust with Republicans that brought Democratic governance will ensure another reversal in 2012.
The best hope for real change is for the Green and Libertarian parties to attract principled progressives and conservatives, noncompetitively, in the districts where they're most likely to succeed in 2010. If they can deny either major party a majority they can bear influence far out of proportion to their numbers and force real, rather than cosmetic, change.
Americans have been drinking the same old sour, toxic wine since 1981 and a shiny, stylish new bottle isn't going to attenuate the hangover.
I am disappointed in the ability of any third party to gain any influence. I believe it is due to a total lack of leadership. I agree that if they could "deny either major party a majority they can bear influence far out of proportion to their numbers" and influence change. Could you please indicate "the districts in which they're most likely to succeed"? It's not too early to start working for it.
kivals, one can only hope that your last sentence does indeed come to fruition.
greg r, valid points. seemingly, some here have already forgotten the bush years, or else can't relate to mr. green's style of writing.
once again, another great job by the most entertaining writer on common dreams.
Let me just add a few overlooked items there, Mr. Green. Your article went on and on about what the Rethugs have done wrong. Let's focus just for a second on the other side of that equation, hmm?
The Democrats have voted right along with those silly Rethugs more times than I care to count, on most of the legislation that brought us to the ruin we are today. For years. Over and over. And over. The fact that most congressional democratic "leaders" are just as complicit as the Rethugs - on torture, for instance, just as one little example - is the main reason no investigations or prosecutions of those crimes will ever occur. So if you're gonna slam the Rethugs for their criminal, psychotic behavior, at least be honest enough to also lay the blame on the Democrats, where it also belongs.
The Democrats are just as deeply in the pockets of their corporate masters as the Rethugs. This most enlightened people know, on both the left and the right. Care for an example? Just look at Obama's cabinet picks. Look at his Treasury Secretary. Wall Street elites, the lot of 'em. Let's take a look at Obama's shoveling of trillions of dollars of no-strings-attached tax-payer dollars into those same gaping corporate maws. And then be a tad more humble about "blaming the right." Blame the left, too, if objectivity has any place in your article.
The bottom line, Mr. Green, is that you - like so many other American sheeple - are just plain blinded to the fact that there really IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. Ideologically, there are small ones - abortion, gay marriage, etc. - but for the most part they are in lockstep with each other: corporations are more important than the people, never hold American leaders accountable for breaking the law, the military-industrial complex is the altar at which we worship, Israel can do no wrong and has our unflagging support no matter what, America does not have to honor treaties or international (or even US) law if it gets in the way of our objectives, American military hegemony is our birthright, and so on and so forth.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree on all of these things, if not by their words than by their votes and their actions.
You could add the words "and democrats" to almost every sentence in your article, Mr. Green, if you were truly objective and honest about the two-party system in this so-called Democracy. So slam the REthugs all you want. But at least have the honesty and cahones to look at the party you worship so much, as well.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
"I've talked to, and read pieces written by, regressives who seriously argue that the GOP's problem is that it hasn't been conservative enough."
I've talked to, and read pieces written by, progressives who seriously argue that Obama's problem is that he hasn't been conservative enough.
Gee, where's Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Fred Thompson, Orin Hatch, George Allen, Jesse Helms and Dennis Hassert when ya need em?
Sadly, the best advertisements for Republican candidates are democratic administrations. Americans voted Obama in out of disgust with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for disgust with the obvious large-scale graft involved in the so-called "bailouts."
Very well, but in four years the citizenry will see that we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq, further in debt, further behind Cuba in health care, with fewer public services and a less educated population. Under those circumstances, some Republican can pretend to have libertarian or populist concerns and have a shot at election.
Wrong. The GOP still rules the roost on most Corp. boards in America and they still hold most of the military officers corp. in their hands and add to all of this their control of the courts and the SCOTUS. Not exactly dead yet. More like bruised.
(The Republican Party) cannot do the one thing that could possibly save it.
That's exactly right. Dwight David Eisenhower isn't coming back but Joe McCarthy is. The T-Bangers have absolutely no place to go but over the cliff to your right. But if you think this finishes them off once and for all, that they will be reduced to Confederate versions of the Nazis or the Communists, you are wrong. Look at the end of every administration since Lyndon Johnson disemboweled himself in 1968. They have ALL ended in failure and disgrace. All of them. I don't think Obysmal will be any different. After the honeymoon comes the dark side of the moon. Print all these articles about the utter and absolute demise of the T-Bangers. And when, at some point in the future, the Spirit of '76 becomes the Spirit of Glenn Beck and we are ruled by people far to the right of George Wanker Bush, take them out and read them for all a bitter laugh.
As long as White America wants a society based on authoritarian patriarchy, (white) male supremacy, gender slavery, constant war, and feral oligarchy, the repugs will always be mainstream...and we will always be ruled by feral oligarchy. And yes, white america loves ALL our wars as long as we 'win'...dems are the same...
Hey Prof. Green,
How about doing some similar pieces on the Democrats?
America is down, but not out. The Repugs did their best to wreck it and we are still going. However, there is no quick fix for the last eight years of destruction, and we will all have to buckle down and try to work this thing out. If we can realize how much more we still have than our ancestors did it helps to get through this tough situation. Life has never been without problems.
The Republicans are not shrinking. They , like Blackwater< are merely "rebranding".
The new Brand name of the "Republican Party" is going to be "The Democratic Party"
It will be BUSINESS and all BUSINESS as usual.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: That's what it looks like to me, too.
Green may well be right, that the Republican Party may go the way of the dodo, but that is only possible because the migration of the banksters and other corporatist fiends to the Democratic Party, which has been underway for decades, can be completed within the next few years with little difficulty. If the Republicans have embarrassed themselves too thoroughly for the corporatist oligarchs to believe that party can ever rebuild its credibility, the oligarchs know that the Democrats can serve quite well as their ciphers and water carriers. That does not mean the passage of the Republican Party would not be a cause for celebration, as it could portend the onset of an era where virtually everyone on the left will be able to agree that the time is right to build a new party to the left.
I believe the Democratic Party will have to slowly and continually tack to the left for several years, or risk the rise of a new left party. A new left party along with the dregs of the Republicans could create quite a mess for the Democrats if they only listen to their biggest clients (bankers and corporatists). At this time, the smartest politicians are Democrats and I believe they will seek to not only reward their rich clients, but keep the progessive agenda going unless it hurts big business profits greatly. After Bush, I'll take some good with the bad, as oppossed to all bad.
To those readers who are pressed for time: let me save you some valuable minutes by summarizing the entire article right here. Ready? OK:
-------------------------------------------
ARTICLE SUMMARY:
-------------------------------------------
**** DMG says that the Republicans are very, very bad. ****
-------------------------------------------
(END OF SUMMARY)
-------------------------------------------
just when i tho't now's a good time to get back into bed, b/c being unemployed under a democrat is SO SUPER, d.m.g. comes along w/another snooze fest.
1st off, w/its control of innumerable mayoralties, state legislatures, governorships, etc., etc., etc., the repukes are not about to roll over & die.
but more importantly, does it strike d.m.g. as at all relevant that today's democrats are all Reaganites? all of them (ok, excepting kucinich et al). that ergo the terms "republican & democrat" are practically meaningless? that the country's political class has shifted massively right?
just look at this excerpt from a paragraph:
But consider the main programmatic commitments of the Bush administration: wars overseas, huge military expenditures, lopsided bias in favor of Israel, arrogant unilateralism towards the UN and all other countries, massive tax cuts, anti-gay legislation, Social Security privatization, deregulation, anti-abortion policies, blocking of stem-cell research, environmental degradation, massive expansion of the wealth gap, erosion of the separation of church and state, and so on.
everyone of these the democrats also fully support (except the ones they constantly waffle on, stem cells/abortion/gay rights. and last time i checked, two republican strongholds, iowa/new hampshire made some changes on the gay rights thing).
d.m.g constantly assaults the right for its attachment to hollow symbolism (teabags, etc.) he's equally guilty (more so in fact, as a professor of political studies, something sarah palin never claimed to be. what is b.ho if not the hollowest symbol of all?)
the democrats control the house, are about to have total control of the senate, and have the presidency.
and it won't make a goddam difference. but d.m.g. will still be spinning his wheels pointing out the inanities of the hillbilly party.
Sioux Rose
Thank you Rush, for all his intelligence, DM Green appears to be hypnotized by the equivalent of the color of the team jersey, and misses the glaring FACT that 85% of the policies generated these days win the accord of "both" parties. This essay is ridiculous.
thanks sioux. and i like your "hypnotized by the equivalent of the color of the team jersey".
Intelligence and reason takes years of patience to accumulate. Stupidity and belligerence OTOH seem to be almost infinite in quantity and will jump in your lap like a puppy.
Given those conditions there will always be something that looks like the Republican party no matter what you call it.
When it comes to Washington and politicians things always move slowly as the wind shifts. But shift it has. Apparently you are blind to the vast subtleties that are occurring. DMG sees them clearly and I most always enjoy his entertaining style. The only hope the Republicans have is if our economic mess shows no signs of improvement by Nov, 2010. Most now understand this, and isn't it amazing that the Republicans must hope for the extreme demise of America's economy in order to have any hope for their future? You and many others on this site can pretend all you want that Republicans and Democrats are no different, but who would you rather see take Souter's place on the Supreme Court, another Clarence Thomas or someone who's not a sick joke?
you didn't read my comments carefully enough.
IT'S SUNSHINE IN AMERICA AGAIN!
sorry, i don't have the patience to go thru ONCE AGAIN point by point how the r's & d's *policies* are nearly identical. look at that list i quoted from d.m.g.'s article and tell me what i was wrong about. not one thing.
but IT'S SUNSHINE IN AMERICA AGAIN!
oh, & supreme court? your dems were sooooooooo courageous in holding up alito & roberts (& thomas & scalia before them) in the senate, i can hardly wait for that champion of the people to emerge from the Senate. no, won't be a fascist like scalia or an idiot like thomas, just someone who can lose every battle for everything decent by a 5-4 margin over and over and over. that's the dems playbook, don't you know?
no greg r, i'm not blind to vast subtleties, but neither am i blind to the microscopically obvious either.
how's your boyfriend doing in pakistan? uh huh, "change we can believe in." bravo Greg R! deliberately creating massive instability on the nuclearized indian sub-continent is just too subtle for me.