Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Republican Party Has Failed–And That’s Not Good For Anyone
The Republican party's failure has me thinking of a Seinfeld episode, the one where Kramer is upset about a Kenny Rogers Roasters restaurant featuring a bright neon sign that lights up his apartment at night. Jerry has an old college friend who winds up working as an assistant manager at the restaurant, and when Kramer hangs a banner from his restaurant protesting the chicken establishment, Jerry's friend remarks "that's not going to be good for business." Jerry responds "that's not going to be good for anyone".
That's how I feel about the intellectually bankrupt, hopelessly divided, and utterly unpopular entity known as today's Republican party. Some critics of the party see the party's failure as a good thing, but I think it's not going to be good for anyone. I'd much prefer to see a rational, functioning Republican party than today's embarrassing irrelevancy.
Not surprisingly, media insiders are missing the story. They are transfixed by gubernatorial elections in 2 states last Tuesday, and are talking up the idea of a Republican resurgence. They're losing sight of some central facts that are unaffected by Tuesday's elections:
The Republican party has a favorable rating of 23% and an unfavorable rating of 66%. (Democrats are at 42%-50%). Republicans in Congress have favorable-unfavorable ratings of 15% and 70% (Democrats are at 40-53). If this is a resurgent party that has captured the national mood, I'm Herbert Hoover.
It's no coincidence that voters give Republicans such abysmal ratings. The Republican party stands for absolutely nothing other than the pursuit of power. For 30 years, the Republicans have claimed to stand for 3 things: (1) small government (2) family values and (3) strong national defense. They don't actually stand for any of these things, and it's not clear that they ever did.
The small government myth Reagan and GW Bush loved to talk up their small government bona fides, but each spent like there was no tomorrow, running up unprecedented deficits and debt. Small government also seemed to get put aside when it came to the bedroom and privacy. Reagan and Bush both supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Bush also supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality for same-sex couples. Not exactly libertarian positions: in each case, the goal was to use government to enforce specific religiously based prohibitions on private activity. Bush did Reagan one better when it came to civil liberties. This champion of small government presided over an era of warrantless wiretapping, torture, and government-sponsored propaganda. (That last point is not my opinion, it was the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office.) Republicans cheered on Bush's campaign against civil liberties at every turn, arguing it was necessary to provide security. And then, when it became painfully clear that only government could save the mismanaged economy from the worst disaster since the Great Depression, Republicans couldn't line up quickly enough behind Bush to support government bailouts of failed corporations.
Family values-just a slogan Republicans have chattered on about family values for decades, but elected Republicans who fail to meet these standards often pay no political price. Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and David Vitter are just a few prominent Republicans who believe family values are only something you gush about when you want to fool voters into thinking that you're an old-time moralist committed to clean living and righteous indignation. Of course, when it comes to other peoples' families, especially gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry and raise families, it's time for a heavy dose of sanctimony.
Republican bungling of national defense The past three decades are filled with examples of disastrous decisions Republicans made that undermined our security, starting with Reagan's and the right wing's backing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan (they called them "freedom fighters", but it turned out their ranks included some guy named Osama Bin Laden). Reagan's administration also came up with the nifty idea of trading arms for hostages, which meant selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund another merry band of freedom fighters in the mold of Paul Revere - the murderous contras. Once again, GW Bush would not be outdone. In August 2001, he brushed aside a memo warning of Bin Laden's determination to strike the United States. After the memo proved terribly prescient, Bush proceeded to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, diverting resources from going after the people who actually had attacked us. A National Intelligence Estimate explained that Bush's misguided decisions had left us less safe, and his administration handed over two unfinished, mismanaged wars to its successor.
If the Republican party does not actually stand for its supposed core principles, what does it stand for? Essentially, a very focused quest for power and the willingness to use smear tactics, lies, and fear in an effort to achieve that goal. Whether it's lying about death panels, health care coverage for undocumented immigrants, or President Obama's uncanny resemblance to Adolph Hitler, the Republicans and right wing have set new standards for indecency. Just as they've broken new ground, they always seem to go further-witness yesterday's anti-health care reform rally where elected Republican officials spoke to a crowd that included someone waving a sign reading "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany 1945" above a stack of piled corpses from a Nazi death camp. It might make some people feel better to dismiss this as an isolated example, but the Nazi comparisons are coming fast and furious, and elected Republicans are condoning or even joining in on the "fun".
Some progressives say-good, no problem. The Republican party is falling apart and rushing to back uninformed extremists who can't win elections--so be it. I see the logic, and in the short-term, the Sarah Palins and Doug Hoffmans of the world may be electoral losers. But so was Barry Goldwater in 1964. 16 years later, the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate who would have been too extreme in previous elections but won two easy victories in the 1980s. He was followed by the even more extreme George W. Bush. Pushing the envelope makes me nervous. Extremism starts to seem normal. We've already seen that with some of the over the top rhetoric-it has become commonplace for right wingers to denounce Obama and the Democrats as Nazis, Marxists, terrorists.
I don't want to take the chance that extremists who take over the Republican party, or perhaps establish a third party, might ultimately see electoral success. I would much prefer to see the few relative moderates who remain in the Republican party gain control, even if it makes the party more palatable to voters. Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and even Olympia Snowe don't scare me. Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin do. The latter group is aiming to make the extreme mainstream. Some are doing it for ideological reasons, others may be exploiting fears simply because they see a path to victory. Either way, the lack of a functioning media is allowing these extremists to pass themselves off as mainstream, and that's not good for anyone.
50 Comments so far
Show AllIs there a point to this article? I think that everyone has known for some time that the republican party has been taken over by extremists and we are painfully aware of their history of plundering public resources.
The author fails to discuss the fact that, in spite of the statistical shrinking of their party, the republicans are prevailing on every major issue in Washington. They have simply been displaced by the rightward shift of the Democrats who are just as happy to do Wall Street and Israel's bidding.
q
I don't have much good to say about the Democrats. The best I can say is that they are a sane alternative to the insane Republican party. Part of my concern with a failed Republican party is that there is very little pressure on the Democrats. A real opposition party would push them to take better positions. The current Republican party makes it easy for the Democrats to take the path of least resistance--all they have to do is present themselves as a sane alternative to the Republicans, which is a very low bar. This is not about propping up the Democrats--I am very frustrated, to say the least, with what the Democrats and Obama are doing in many areas, including health care reform, economic stimulus (that they haven't done enough of this), reining in (or not) Wall Street and executive power. I think it's a lot easier for them get away with this when the Republican party is focused on mythical death panels and the imminent threat that Obama will impose a Nazi regime on the United States. So, I don't really disagree with you, but I think bringing sanity to the Republican party would actually help focus attention on the Democratic party's own glaring shortcomings.
[ A real opposition party]
Well, Chris, that's the problem with 'democracy' in the usa. You don't really have an opposition party at all. The Repubs are insane. The Dems are on medication, but still just as crazy. I'm not a yank, so perhaps I just don't understand the real differences between the two parties, but from my pov the dems are a traditional right wing conservative party (and have been all my lifetime) and the repubs are a group of fascists - not the Hitler type of fascist more a mix of Benny and Franco's style of military incompetence and corporate greed.
I think that the usa needs a real socialist party to form and be electable in order for 'democracy' to survive. But that's as likely as seeing a Communist party victory in my home province of Alberta; our conservative government is screwing up, the conservative voters are reacting by forming a new party - one that is even more rightwing than the current batch of idiots...
I don't agree that the Democrats are like Mussolini or Franco, but I do agree that they are well to the right of liberal parties in Europe today. The middle of the American political spectrum had been pushed rightward, to the extent that the "liberal" position on health care reform is not single payer but a very limited public option available only to a small minority of Americans. Democrats have accepted much of the sloganeering about big government, and many Democrats went along with the Bush administration on the hopelessly misguided and counterproductive Iraq war. So, in some ways, you're absolutely right--there aren't huge differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to some issues. However, there are some important differences--to me, the most salient one is the unhinged extremism that is taking over the Republican party. Elected Republicans and right wing leaders routinely accuse Obama and the Democrats of being Nazis, terrorists, Marxists, etc. As I mentioned, just the other day, a large number of elected Republicans, members of Congress, addressed a foaming at the mouth crowd that was waving signs comparing modest health care reform to the Nazi death camps.
There is more than one problem here. You're right that it would be nice to see Democrats taking truly liberal positions when it comes to the role of government, foreign policy, science, health care etc. A separate issue is the question of out of control extremism on the right wing, now supported by supposedly respectable Republicans. It worries me that it is becoming acceptable for Republicans and right wingers to make utterly outrageous charges against Obama and the Democrats. It also worries me that people have been coming to right wing rallies in D.C. holding signs saying "we didn't bring our guns--this time." I am not arguing for repression or punishment of this dangerous, incredibly irresponsible rhetoric. What I am trying to do is persuade media insiders to take notice of what is going on and to shine a light on radical right wing extremism and its connection to the Republican party. My suspicion is that many Americans aren't aware of just how unhinged the right wing has become, as it is not highlighted in the mainstream media.
Saturnaila said: "and the REPUBS are a group of fascists - not the Hitler type of fascist more a mix of Benny and Franco's style of military incompetence and corporate greed."
He was referring to the REPUBS as bumbling fascists not the dems, and I agree with his point.
"What I am trying to do is persuade media insiders to take notice of what is going on and to shine a light on radical right wing extremism and its connection to the Republican party. My suspicion is that many Americans aren't aware of just how unhinged the right wing has become, as it is not highlighted in the mainstream media."
Chris, I share your concern about the extremism of the republicans. You spoke previously about two previously unelectables, Reagan and Bu$h becoming electable though time. Unfortunately, the extreme right wingnuts have a stronger media mouthpiece right now than does then entire center to left of center population. FOX News. They cover everything the right wing fringe does...Glenn Beck's "9/12" event, the tea parties, the armed whackjobs at the healthcare townhall meetings. These all get MSM publicity through this non-mainstream propaganda source that leads certain uneducated elements of the population (conservatives) to believe this really is mainstream America. FOX is accelaterating the processes of true facism exponentially.
Yep, those Dems are out to take good care of us all right. And Obama. You cannot name a single thing they have done to avert further job loss or to revive the economy....and PLEASE don't dredge up the farce of the stimulas pkgs.
And please let up on the Democratic propaganda lines.
Over the last 30 years, things have slanted so far to the right that we have effectively NO left in this country. After Watergate, the republicans decided that they had to teach US all a lesson. THEY were in charge, and WE had NO right to interfere with their imperialistic and selfish goals. Even I, a youngster at that time, saw the change. After Nixon, the republicans went from a mostly reasonable but still money grubbing party into a completely unreasonable, mean and nasty bunch of children. They have gotten worse since then, too, to the point where they don't even make sense, now.
The Democratic party is now what the republicans USED to be, and there is no one standing up for US. Corporate America has EVERYONE representing them, now, and we got NO ONE but Bernie Sanders. The republicans have gone over the deep end, where a lie is the truth and an obfuscation is reality. How else can you equate getting people actual medical care with Auswitz?
It truly IS time for a people's party. It's about time that we got together and took back what we were promised by this country. Time for an actual LEFT in this country. To hell with the rich, they already have FAR too much. It's time for us to get enough to live on, and to join the rest of the civilized world in treating the average citizen like something other than just a bottomless pocket to be picked.
you're right that there aren't huge differences in many areas, but there are some important substantive differences. Health care debate is one example-Dems have endorsed a very moderate, incremental approach but it is still substantively different than what Rs support (which is essentially nothing). Same is true on global warming (many Rs deny this is even a problem). There are important differences re: Iraq--Rs want to keep troops there indefinitely, Obama has begun (slowly) taking them out. I am not saying the Democrats deserve unending support, and I find it hard to identify as a Democrat myself these days, but there are some important differences between Dems and Republicans. Of course, there are also troubling areas of overlap e.g. executive power, and (possibly) Afghanistan (though that is not a settled matter yet), but there are differences that matter. That doesn't mean the Democrats are perfect or even satisfactory, but I think it's important to note they are not in the Boehner-Bachmann-DeMint-Limbaugh-Beck camp that has taken over the Republican party
RichM, that's a wallop you packed on that punch. Most contractors go unreported now that the military is privatized. The 10,000 soldiers going out of Iraq are mainly going into Afghanistan from what I hear.
To all you folks out there who think we're supporting Republicans, we ain't. We don't like what the Democrats or Republicans are doing and don't support them. But the worst thing the Democrats can do is lie, pretend being nice, and then backstab us. Why be dishonest when you can just spell it out and let the people vote on your actions instead of more confused rhetoric ?
It's way past time to form a viable third party. For it to succeed, it may have to be more of a centrist type party in the beginning to gain a majority stronghold, but once this is established, we can work towards a more progressive agenda. There are plenty of people out there now who are completely disenchanted with both the republicanazis and democraps. The key is to establish a party that will be supported by a large majority of the population. In the early 20th century, the Populist Party gained a foothold in congress. We have similar conditions now and can do the same. It's past time to snuff both corporate parties and establish a party that will at least represent we the people versus the monied corporations!
Thank you for a voice of sanity. I get so fed up with all of the partisan cheerleading that passes for intellectual discussion on this site.
Democrats have had the majority since 2006, and have accomplished almost nothing. I'm tired of delusional progressives, who for a lack of a viable party that espouses their values, projects their values onto Democrats and makes them something they're not. These self-deluded supporters come here every election and preach lesser-of-evilism to all us "simple minded" people who "just don't get it."
I'm also tired of Democrats playing the victim minority with their hands tied. Nearly all progressive change has been thwarted by establishment party insiders not the "evil Republicans." Until the Democratic Party puts the bulk of their energy into cleaning up their own party instead of scoffing at tea baggers, nothing is going to change. We will continue to have a group of educated people who smile condescendingly at Republicans, all the while oblivious to how they are being duped just as equally into supporting the same policies that they hate the Republicans for. 9/10 of what passes for political discussion in this country is political theater. We nitpick over ridiculously small changes in the status quo and attach dramatic importance to these discussions and fawn over empty rhetoric like smelling farts. These are distractions, and they make it so anybody who speaks about serious change is labeled as a radical or nutjob.
Nothing is going to change for the better in this country until people hang up the partisan fairy tale that we so desperately want to believe in.
"...accomplished nearly nothing."
Oh, I don't know. I would consider the first increase in the minimum wage in over a decade to be a big thing. And if you actually did some research instead of just waiting for the MSM to tell you the truth, you would find a fair number of things that HAVE passed since then, thanks to the dems, and over the objections of the repubs every time. I would also consider that the dems have not had power since 2006, but only since 2009, seeing as how W could just ignore or veto whatever he wanted, and in fact, DID. Holding the house is NOT holding power. In fact, if holding one house were a power play, it would be the senate, NOT the house. It's a LOT easier to stall, obfuscate, and obstruct in the senate. And neither one really matters if the president is sure to turn around and veto anyway.
That being said, I think that when you have essentially two sides of one party and that one is the right, you have not got a two party system. To the right and further to the right is NOT a choice. And that is being said as an independent voter. I don't trust dems, but I detest repubs. Given a choice, I would FAR prefer the FDR type dems to what we have now. What we have now is fascist lite, and the only other choice is total fascism.
But finally, if the repubs hadn't had this agenda to destroy the middle class, the dems wouldn't have had anything to go along with, would they? And that is why I place the blame on them. And why they deserve it.
I had the same thought, RichM.
I've repeatedly applied to our surrealistic duopoly the seminal joke Woody Allen uses in "Annie Hall" to describe his character's romantic relationships.
It's the one where a man mentions to his psychiatrist that the man's brother thinks he's a chicken. When the psychiatrist suggests that the man bring his brother in for treatment, the man replies, "Well, I would... but we need the eggs."
It stretches the joke out of shape, but I'll temporarily add a bit to characterize the dubiousness of attributing sanity to the Democratic Party:
The psychiatrist goes on to say, "But your brother is INSANE!", upon which the man replies, "Yeah, but the EGGS are perfectly SANE!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
Exactly. The two parties collude. They probably work their election out in advance before putting on the show for us.
We the People have no representation. But .. the thrill you can still get by watching the video, "Yes We Can!" - manufactured by Obama's award winning advertising team - is enough for some. Watch it, if you haven't. It was brilliant.
I've looked at a variety of recent polls. It doesn't look to me like Americans give much credibility to people like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, it's just that the media is pointing their cameras and microphones at them, not us. Maybe the right wingnuts represent 25% of the people - about where the Republican approval rating is. So what? Why is there so much focus on the opinions of a publicly rejected minority rather than on the ACTUAL policies of the Obama administration.
I found that over 60% of Americans think global warming is a threat. 40% say it's a "serious threat." Most prefer a single payer health care system. The war is very unpopular, etc. etc.
Obama won. Dems have the coveted triple majority. The polls show where American are and it ain't with our politicians. They are blowing it again - by design.
Why I refer to both as "REPUBLICRATS". We need a good third party.
At least someone is paying attention. And the Democratic party has also been taken over by extremists.
One must always keep an open mind to succeed and to learn.
The extremist are correct about some things( often for the wrong reasons).
Obomber and Dems ---
Marxist/Nazis? ---- USA has the most powerful and sophisticated propaganda apparatus in history.
72 fusion centers and counting.
Patriot Act, indefinite detention, ubiquitous "State Secrets", torture by request.
Foreign policy as aggressive as the Nazis.
Jews are not going to be decimated but rather the working class will suffer degraded, harsh existence in order to bloat the oilarchy.
Terrorist -- No debate
Huge state terrorism every day and applauds its proxy?/master? israel in its Holocaust type operations.
Mr. Obama...Tear down that wall!
We have many parties vying for seats in the lower elections all around the country, whether it is for mayoral, commissioner, state house or Senate seats. But the independents rarely get seen or heard because of funding deficiencies and lack of structure. Big money spends and spends, and tends to get elected or comes close to being elected from the republican party. Their big money is connected to other big money that run local businesses, and they smirk and demean fellow candidates. These people stand for profiting for themsleves, often classism and sometimes racism.
Moderates or otherwise.
Why cant we elect people who stand for something that benefits everyone? It again comes down to the uninformed people. Intelligent as they may be. The fact that Palin can even play on irrational fears is because of the media and misinformation.
What we are seeing is the money fueled revolving door for people who want to keep it for themsleves.
My fear would be arguing in front of the people who are racist and cabalistic but are well informed. But we can't even inform people in an age that information is the closest thing to God.
Expanding your viewpoint (with information) means including others in your world and actually considering them in your everydayness. That is the last thing these folks want to do.
There is a very large wall put by the people who have things, and once we do have an informed candidate, that is the status quo they have to fight.
Repuglicans or Demonocrats.
Love
Zero
What Congress has become: the party of the rich,for the rich, and by the rich...and has failed the American people and that is not good for anyone except the super wealthy 1%.
How about uniting the moderates and independents from both parties into a new Moderate Independent Party? What do you think?
it's not an unreasonable idea. I'm a progressive myself, so wouldn't be something I'd back, but in theory I could see how this might be a politically viable idea. I should note, though, that in my view most of the Democrats qualify as moderates or conservatives. Obviously, the bluedogs are one moderate/conservative bloc, but very few Democrats in Congress are truly liberal (to give one example, how many are fighting for single payer in the health care debate?).
Chris 12:48 --------
Do you use semantics or a state supplied definition to claim Obama and the Dems are not terrorists?
Drone attacks, slaughtering civilians who come to close to convoys, bombing many gatherings of civilians, burning babies to death with white phosphorous.
Please do not claim these are only an endless chain of misfortune because I know that would not be your opinion if you lived under USA bombs.
Is destroying a restaurant terrorism but not destroying a nation?
A myriad of war crimes all for imperial ambitions, not to, as only the naive could claim, protect the USA.
Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan , Pakistan, Somalia , Palestine and Iran.
Supporting Op Cast Lead and disaproving of the righteous Goldstone Report, clear examples of USA's vocal support of Terrorism.
Please do not attempt to use the nation/ non nation dicotomy for Hamas , the Bathists and Taliban are all legitimate state actors.
One thing Obama and congress has accomplished in the first eight months of Obama in office is to kill more Afghan civilians than Bush did in eight years ( source Maya Joya (sp?) former Jurga member in recent interview with Amy Goodman).
I realize being associated with a University limits your free speech but that does not command you to make false statements.
Those Republicans and Democrats calling themselves "moderates" are not real moderates. Please read my response to RichM that I wrote in detail about what I meant by the word moderate.
RichM, what I mean by moderates are people who don't vote too extreme on positions and are willing to work out a compromise. I'm not referring to the Democrats and Republicans who call themselves "moderates" in the name of voting in the direction the wind blows.
Of course I am not an extremist and I do not want to be one for fear of offending anyone. We can still find similarities and work out our differences for the common good. There are people who identify themselves as conservatives but have strong support of some liberal positions. There are people who identify themselves as moderates, independents, or both but who have a mixture of the values of both sides but do not want to be pulled over by one side or the other. Moderates are open to both sides but I for one will not be pulled to one extreme or the other.
I can see what you mean by what the ruling class thinks but they don't fear extremism. They fear moderation because they would no longer be able to justify looting the public and throwing people into war camps. Being a true moderate is not corporatist. Being anti-war means no more bloodshed and winning by moderated means such as diplomacy and peaceful negotiations. Single payer is moderate because it means that instead of the insurance companies dictating who gets covered, government gives basic coverage to everyone and if anyone needs beyond basic coverage, there's supplemental insurance. Opposing Wall Street bailouts I see as a moderate position because nobody else is getting bailouts. If Wall Street is getting bailed out, it needs to be met with bailing out Main Street. Otherwise, no bailouts, period. Global warming can be solved in several ways. Some measures are too light, some are too extreme, and others are moderated so that it doesn't make the task burdensome while at the same time few can complain that we are doing nothing. There are some actions on curbing global warming that I whole heartedly support but there are others that I find unsuitable.
We cannot allow the ruling class to paint us as extremists. We must stand firm and tell them straight up that we are the true moderators while they are the extremists trying to cause more trouble. If we succumb to their painting us as extremists, then they win and we lose. Look at what happened this year on health care and wars. The true moderators allowed the ruling class to call them extremists and they defeated us.
From the looks of the increasingly violent, dead;y, warmongering Obama administration, it appears the republicans are alive and well--inside the democratic party.
No difference in the two no matter how writers try to make it so.
I agree with the threat of the exreme-right and some of the points raised however...
Mr. Edelson needs to expand his level of analysis just a bit and take the two-party, phony dichotomy, simplistic black and white blinders off as well.
The political/legal/economic system is broken and pretty much corrupt to the core.
Authors who outline this in various ways: Naomi Klein, Chomsky, Zinn, Crhis Hedges, Chalmers Johnson, Stephen Hill, Sheldon Woln, Michael Hudson, Richard Wolff, Webster Tarpley,
et al. etc. etc.
Sorry, but I did not find this article very helpful
What is the point of wishing that our enemies would be nicer? Progressives have little enough influence on the Democrats. Why would we help people who are even farther from our positions? Why in the world would I lift a finger to help the people like Snowe who provide cover for the crazies?
Has anyone ever heard the maxim: "Divide and conquer"? That's exactly what is happening in this country. All that people seem to do is fight with each other, while the politicians and the media do the bidding of their masters, the military/industrial complex. How many of you who read this have tried to make things better? How many have organized and gone to Washington? Its easy to sit back and slam those who represent us, but it does little good. This democracy is in grave danger, why not get off your backsides and do something? A million people on the mall at D.C., refusing to leave, would be a good first step.
Not a million people, but there have been tens of thousands and hundreds of thousand of people in the streets in Washington this year. It should be a clue as to where the problem is for anyone left of center......they weren't Repubs, Dems or Prog's nor liberals.....
"A million people on the mall...refusing to leave"
And then they would be gassed.
Actually, I DO miss (R)s like Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, who were intellectually honest and consistent in their principles: who extended their "government not interfering in private lives" belief into an end of the war on drugs and no laws against womens' reproductive rights (and I'm sure we would have seen them support GLBT rights, including marriage).
I opposed MOST of what they stood for (and most of that seem to spring from a belief in U.S. exceptionalism), but they and their type were refreshing to debate, and served to hone my own values and opinions.
I don't ever remember either of them making up facts or figures just to support some inane argument.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
You say the Rs failed, I say they've finally revealed their true colors, no longer able to hide behind the thin veneer of faux populism, anger, God, and perpetual patriot victimization.
And now that the true R colors are exposed for all to see?
Why would anyone want the GOP to remain in existence if today's GOP is the actual, real GOP? The 'real' conservatives have always been the minority in their own party, but have been willing to play frontmen/women for the R-crazies... until recently...
Instead of whining about the demise of what has always been essentially a fringe band of nuts, consider that the Rs shrinkage opens the door for the possibility of 3rd, 4th, and 5th political parties to expand and enlarge their own 'bases'... especially seeing as how the Ds are frankly as much owned by the Banksters as the Rs are anyway...
WOW ! This is the first time I have ever seen an article like that get published here. I don't like most of what the Democratic Party is doing but it is important that we know everything we need to know about the Republican Party. I already see some angry comments against the Democratic Party and I'm just as outraged as you are but I still believe that the Democratic Party can be pushed to the left.
Chris Edelson, even though I don't support the Republican Party and would prefer to concentrate on moving the Democratic Party to the left, I agree with your idea of keeping more moderates in the Republican Party. The conservatives have taken over both parties and that needs to be undone.
I would like to vote for a viable third party but where are the money and resources to get it going? Will that third party pull over voters from both the Republican and Democratic parties or just the Democrats and let the Republicans win? What is the guarantee that conservatives won't corrupt and take over that party like they have the Democratic and Republican parties? That's why it is practical for progressives to stick to trying harder to move the Democratic Party to the left and moderate the Republican Party.
There's nothing wrong with pushing Dems or even Repugs left. You just cannot do it by always voting for them.
The $$ issue is big, but voting for $$ fixes nothing. We need election reform first. Let's get some local referenda that get the $$ out of the local elections.
Election reform, insofar as it happens, is what will stop money from owning government -- insofar as the US accomplishes that.
And let's push all the Dems we want between times.
push
pull
yank
prod
noodge
rocket or catapult or anything whatsoever
except leave them at once in peace and in office.
Hi,
Seems like i didn't see this anywhere in the comment thread (didn't read EVERY word...):
"...starting with Reagan's and the right wing's backing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan (they called them "freedom fighters", but it turned out their ranks included some guy named Osama Bin Laden)."
True about Reagan and the right doing this, but the plan was originally hatched and funding begun by the Democrats under Carter and his National Security Adviser Brzezinski. So not a differentiator between the two party wings...
The task for we progressives is not to concern ourselves with what becomes of the Republican, Democratic or any other party, but to lay out the progressive agenda (among other things, troops out now, single payer, reversing global warming, nationalizing banks, tull employment, free education pre-school through graduate school) and only support those candidates who are willing to run on it, no matter their party. Not just run on the progressive agenda, but sign a pledge to fight for it. And if this leads to the Democratic Party moving as far left as the Republican Party's moving to the right, so much the better, since that'll give voters a real choice, vote Republican and get the status quo or worse or vote Democratic and change the world. What about the center? Just that when the going gets tough, as it is now, the center can be counted on to collapse in one direction or the other, but this time its collapsing to the right would be a threat to all living beings, what with perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday. Compared to that outlook, the Democratic (ie progressive) agenda will be too good to turn down. So bring on the extreme polarization that MSM is so worried about.
Beck and Bachmann and Palin are publicity stunts. They're being used by the GOP for short term gain and then they'll be discarded and forgotten.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
You are quite correct... Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their type are entertainers. They do not represent the power in our country.
The public owes Prof. Edelson a debt of gratitude for pointing out that the ultraright ascendancy in the Republican Party is dangerous because such a party may enjoy electoral success in the future. Unfortunately, the danger is not limited to possible electoral success: The "mainstream" GOP (Cheney-Bush) has already demonstrated its predilection not only for unconstitutional rule but also for taking power by unconstitutional means (Bush v. Gore, 2000). The danger of this precedent is multiplied greatly when it is recognized that today's ultraright (such as the "teabaggers," "birthers," "death panel" shouters, all armed to the teeth) is in fact a spontaneous proto-fascist movement seeking entry into the political mainstream. (David Neiwert has reported extensively on these folks.) Historically, such a "middle class" fascist movement develops independently in mature bourgeois society and percolates on the back burner of the polical spectrum, ultimately providing an option to be tapped by the real rulers of the nation in times of acute crisis. This latter phenomenon is the "marriage of classes" historically exhibited by developed fascism; intimations of which are already evident in the covert corporate sponsorship of "tea party" rallies against health care reform.
The crisis of American society will only deepen in the coming years. Liberals exhibit a dangerous ignorance of history when they celebrate the ultraright ascendancy as rendering the GOP "unelectable." Fascism, no matter how inchoate or absurd, is never something to be celebrated.
So the Republicans are a failed Party according to Mr. Chris Edelson?
Man he must not be paying attention. This President and Congress brought these Jokers back from the dead in just 9 months.
When you start believing your own propaganda, especially when polls show you plainly its BS....let me paraphrase.....keep thinking that till they swim up onto the beach and bit you in the ass.
The moderates and Independents are gone taking Seniors with them. They are not going to vote Democratic again...so guess who they will vote for?
Ideology will kill you in the end.
Its nice to see such credible commentary on a
complex and important subject.
I would encourage prof edelson to step over
and peer behind the screen. What the faux news
repugs are doing is vaccinating the media
environment against the investigation of repug
crimes, by claiming the obamanauts of equally
egregious crimes. To a certain extent , these
claims are true...what gives the lie to faux
claims is that they protest too much now and none then.
Bushs election theft, followed by treason, etc etc
(including over a million iraqi deaths, 8-9 thousand
us deaths in new york wash and iraq..)and the total
revamping of our governmental structure and organization,
much of which was off budget'
cannot be compared to extending civil rights abuses,
including the patriot acts extension.and whatever else
obamanauts are charged with.
what the dems seem to be forced to accept is the
FAUX rationale for repugnant national security claims
of 'international terrorism' for what was a crime committed
by friends and allies to help us (repugs) stay in office;
((presidents at war are always "reelected "
Which leads to edelsons critics claims that
the dems are in on the fraud...GOOD cop to the repugs
BAD cop...two sides to the same wooden NICKEL. who
agree to trade turns sitting in the seats every eight years.
The failure of the ethics process to extend, for instance,
the duke cunningham, delay and abranmoff scandals to all its
obvious perpetrators; gives the finger to its citizens who hope
for real accountability.
ALL IS RELATIVE?????