Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Casual Observation

by BooMan
Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 01:11:16 PM EST

The defection of Arlen Specter has predictably started a conversation on the future of the Republican Party, but I haven't seen anyone hit the nail on the head, yet. Most talk revolves around relaxing their positions on abortion, immigration, and gay rights. None of those issues are their core problem. Their core problem is their anti-government stance, particularly as it concerns the federal government. In a time when people are looking for big government solutions to health care, climate change, energy dependence, and education quality and costs, it is simply untenable to take a position against government action. The Republicans look fondly back on the presidency of Ronald Reagan and his philosophy that government is too often the problem rather than the solution for our national concerns. That philosophy is inappropriate in our current political climate because the people are clamoring for government-provided solutions.

More than the shift in cultural attitudes, the GOP's refusal to articulate a rival positive theory of government is what is leaving them helpless in their bid to attract voters. George W. Bush at least attempted to offer a positive alternative with his 'Ownership Society' platform. Privatizing Social Security proved to be a bust (and it looks much worse in retrospect) but it did represent a political view where government was seen as a partner, not an innate evil. I don't think the Republicans should revert to Bush's plans for entitlement reform, but they need to decide on a vision for what government should do and stop this nonsense about how the government is doing too much. Hurricane Katrina and Credit Default Swaps killed off the viability of Reagan's creed quite thoroughly. Until the GOP realizes this, no amount of tinkering about the edges of social mores will help them sufficiently to allow for a comeback.

Casual Observation | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Casual Observation (none / 1)

I don't think the "big government" yap is the root of the problem, because it's just code for "don't tax the rich and corporate". Reagan grew the government and the budget at record levels. He's revered by the right because he radically shifted the tax burden away from the ruling class. He appealed to the strange, childish, rage Americans feel at having to pay for what they get through government. In addition he was personally appealing to many people (for reasons I'll never understand).

Combine that particular infantilism with the equally mindless yearning for authoritarian theocracy and you get a party with a fanatic core and dwindling prospects for majority status. The future of the GOP is irrelevant. What we should be thinking about is what will replace it. And more importantly, how we can tear down the two-party system once and for all.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 01:35:40 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

But, you've only more clearly defined the problem.

The problem with running for federal office on a platform that the federal government should do nothing is that if you succeed you will wind up breaking your promises and doing something.

by BooMan on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 01:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casual Observation (none / 1)

Well, I think "big government" is as content-free as "good government" or "personal responsibility", etc. It's just an empty box to fill with one's personal prejudices. Does anybody dispute the priority of keeping government as small as it can be and still fulfill its functions?

I think Dems have allowed themselves to be cornered on the wrong side of this issue. What's in the box is the question, not the box itself. I think the box has to contain a strong social safety net, strong federal environmental/energy/transportation policy, and major funding for education at all levels, for starters. My problem with big government lies with bloated military spending, the drug war, and agribiz and other corporate subsidies, for starters. The Dem Party I want will campaign for small government within parameters like those. Unfortunately we've allowed the GOP to own the concept and pervert it to its own unworkable obsessions.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Reagan didn't promise to do nothing. He promised to cut taxes so that Laffler-curve magic would fix the economy by trickling down. He promised massive military spending to defend the Evil Empire.

People were disgusted with stagflation and Carter's inability to cure it. Also Carter seemed ineffective and wussy for failing to free the Iranian hostages. Don't discount the mass media trumpeting night after night "America Held Hostage, Day: XXX". The American public wanted an ass-kicker not a negotiator. Older Americans remembered (or believed anyway) that massive military spending cured the Great Depression. The tax cut thing seemed weird, but people were ready to try anything. For Reagan it was the Perfect Storm.

So, far from promising inaction, Reagan promised action and Carter was perceived as representing inaction.

Reagan took office just as a cyclical upswing bagan and the Laffler-curve entered Republican ideology. Many of Reagan's, primary opponents were against it. Notably, George H.W. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics". I think it's quite possible that the arms race did break the Soviet Union, but much else was happening to speed its demise. Reagan benefited from this too and got more credit than he deserved.

by The Voice In The Wilderness on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 08:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

you're right, and it's been nagging me for some time...

How can you be anti-government, yet run for and operate a government?

Seems an inherent contradiction in there somewhere...

The other nagging concern: Ever notice how Dems (especially the more progressive Dems) harp on and on about responsibility and accountability? while most published Republican statements will not mention anything of the sort---unless it applied to Dem politicians? Another head-scratcher....

"The invisible hand of Adam Smith seems to offer an extended middle finger to an awful lot of people"---George Carlin

by justadood on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:01:24 PM EST

property versus people (none / 0)

Until the Republican party understands that people are more important than property, all their bullshit about "states rights, big government, the welfare state" etc will continue to poison and taint their party.

Even the most stupid and ignorant cracker understands by this point that he/she has been used, her/his prejudices and weaknesses have been used as cement to hold together a "base" that serves as a foundation for rich corporations and their "running dogs." Yeah, thank you Uncle Ho!

Seriously, they have been betrayed and hung out to dry yet they hate folks such as successful Jews and African Americans so bad they stick with the guys that are sticking it to them and the rest of the planet. They ARE BITTER and cling to their guns. Think how you would feel if you were bamboozled and made to look stupid and useless?

There is not enough money to bring back the Republican Party the way the pool lifeguard and actor, Ronald Reagan, left it.

The Repuclican Party is fucked unless they put people first and property second.

alohapolitics.com

by Keone Michaels on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:23:15 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

It seems like the flu threat exposes the small government position more than anything out there. Nothing like the threat of death (however unlikely) to focus the mind. Just look at the Texas Governor. The media is inadvertently helping by over blowing the present circumstances and concentrating on what the feds SHOULD be doing.

This type of fed intervention is REALLY easy for the average American to understand. If the pandemic takes off and the feds step it up, that small government crap becomes unspeakable for a generation. Of course a pandemic will be said to be 'good for the republicans' (but then, what isn't?), but the average person won't be fooled.

nalbar

by nalbar (nalbarsatgmaildotcom) on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:32:00 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Typically, the American Spectator gets it almost exactly wrong. They believe that the GOP has to stand for smaller government and that they lost because they didn't do that under Bush. They actually argue that the GOP brand was destroyed by expanded Medicare benefits and greater federal spending. Not so. The brand was destroyed because by every metric the country was weakened during the Bush years. In addition, the Bush administration alienated every ethnic group other than whites and completely discredited themselves with the intellectual and scientific community as well. They made it too embarrassing to be a Republican almost anywhere outside of a redneck bar.

by BooMan on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:36:08 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

This is not quite correct, though I agree on many things here. First, it wasn't really the Bush administration that alienated every ethnic group other than whites - they alienated blacks as a matter of policy, but they really were trying to reach out to the Hispanic community for those first few years, and really did try pretty damn hard to tamp down on "anti-Arab" and "anti-Muslim" stuff within the administration right after 9/11. It was the rest of the GOP that was hell-bent on alienating every ethnic/religious group other than white, male evangelical Christians and maybe Catholics, not really the administration itself.

The rest I mostly agree with - the administration worked to purposefully alienate people who value education and science, and weakened the country by every conceivable metric I can think of over the last 8 years. But I don't think that the administration was purposefully (or even unintentionally) trying to alienate most non-white ethnic groups, and in fact got a lot of flack from the racist wing because of it.

(And I expect no less from a rag like The American Spectator - they have their personal ideology and will work their asses off to make the fact surround that ideology - no matter how many facts they have to ignore to make it work.)

by nonynony on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Regardless of what the Repubs think or the U.S. constitution and/or state constitutions say, most people want one law across the land and view the "states rights" argument as an obstacle to progress.

The courts interpretation of the Commerce clause has been a big step in that direction. We need to go the rest of the way and eliminate the ability to make a states rights argument by amending the Constitution.

by Chief on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:51:28 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Agreed and would go one step further: the repugs only appear to be anti-government, when it comes to things like the pentagon, war, corporate welfare, spying on we citizens, the CIA, etc., they are totally in favor of big gov't. big spending.

look what happened to the defense budget after smirky was elected. it was sort of under control under Clinton.. but forget it once a repug gets elected.

of course, when it comes to helping we "the little people", i.e. social programs, education, etc., their fiscal sphincters shrink up and literally disappear.

the "conservatives" are no longer fiscally conservative- a rather large plank in their platform. smirky left office with a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit after entering office with a surplus. the repuglicans grew the size of the federal gov't (Homeland Security, etc.)-- another failure related to their platform.

by Superpole on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 02:52:08 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Looking back on the last 8 years I can't of any accomplishments the Republicans made on the domestic front. There is nothing people can point to that improved their quality of life. And that's the essential problem with the right. They are not concerned with the problems people face. No solutions for the bread and butter issues that can't be solved with lower taxes and cuts in spending. It just isn't going to fly anymore.

At least when Democrats want to spend money, it'll be spent on the people. More true than not.

by ishmael on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 03:04:11 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 1)

As I've said, the GOP thinks it can be the party of 2010 by pretending to be the party of 1980, while actually being the party of 1950 and economically being the party of 1920.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

by Zandar1 on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 04:31:22 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

I have not forgotten how the Reagan administration had absolutely no qualms against using the power of big government to gleefully engage in union busting.

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

by Indianadem on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 05:15:31 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

OK. I think I've cracked this particular code:

big government = the majority. Government that operates in the interest of the public at large, the national community, is a negative.

small government = the crucial minority (ie, the wealthy). Government that operates as a tool & ally of the wealthy, regardless of the greater good, is A OK!

by wilderness wench on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 07:32:29 PM EST

Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)

Mission Statement for Small Govt.

Privatize the profit, socialize the losses

"I never trust people who don't laugh." Maya Angelou, March 5, 2009

by Indianadem on Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 10:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casual Observation | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile