(The following was written back in 2007 when the GOP lost the Congressional elections and was left wondering how that happened. Some of the rantings below are not as realistic as they seemed at the time of the writing, but the larger point survives. How the GOP deals with this phenomenon will determine their success at the polls in next three cycles. It is my opinion that their response will also determine the direction of America.)
Now that Nancy Pelosi is going to be Speaker of the House, Republicans can take this time to figure out just why they no longer are the majority party.
I'll save everyone the hassle. The GOP lost its base, and is proud of it.
Conservatives are getting harder and harder to find. Not that America is getting any more liberal, it's just harder for conservatives to find space in that 'big tent' we all thought was the GOP. If you stray from the mold of the perfect Republican, you are not wanted, nor are you needed.
Take me for example. In years past, I would have been a great Republican. Not so in the Neo-conservative movement. Here are reasons the GOP would normally love to have me voting for them:
-30 something
-Married - first wife
-Three kids
-Northern European ancestry
-English speaker
-High School graduate
-College graduate
-Former delegate to the California State GOP Convention
-Young Americans for Freedom chapter officer.
-Pro-life
-Very pro gun
-10 year naval officer
-Combat veteran
-Anti-affirmative action
-VERY, VERY, VERY anti-illegal immigrant
-Rush Limbaugh listener for the last 17 years
-Advocates abolishing the Federal Income Tax in every form
-Advocates abolishing most federal welfare assistance
Here is why the GOP hates me:
I'm a union member (Allied Pilots Association).
I hate the Wal-Martization of America.
Yep. The GOP has essentially aligned itself with the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street, and told anyone that opposes the unholy alliance between Wall Street/Globalization/Government that they are not "true conservatives" and only want our economy to suffer.
Really? Is that so? Every time I turn on Limbaugh/Hannity/Medved, I hear about how this economy is the best in human history - not just recent times in America, but the best in human history. We don't have to infer that we owe all our gratitude for living in this Horn of Plenty to the modern GOP and its business puppet masters.
First off, the economy isn't the best ever. It's not bad, but bubble economies are always good on the upslope. It's that downdraft that is the stinker. The economy is riding on the bow-wave of the national Housing Bubble, and as it unwinds, the first consumer recession since 1991 will get underway. Pointing this out to a national talk show host will only get you smeared into "wanting" the economy to crumble. It's the logic of saying in mid-October that winter is on the way and being accused of wanting crappy weather.
Such is the dialogue on national talk radio. I was listening to Rush's stand-in, Rodger Hedgecock, and he would not entertain any conservative calling in to point out that globalization is killing American industry. Rather than agreeing to the obvious, he said - and I am not making this up - that those Goodyear workers that are on strike in Kansas because their wages are being cut from $25/hr to $15/hr are "sucking the last drop of blood" from their employer. Their employer wants to move to Mexico, where they don't have to pay American-class wages and benefits, but still want access to American-class consumer dollars.
He went on to say that San Diego found the solution. As aerospace went into decline, bio-med and Qualcomm stepped in to save the day. All of this was due to their investment in the UCSD. That's the future of America. Great. We are now so tone-deaf to middle America that we are telling them to go to college and play with test tubes and cell phones.
That works if you have the mental firepower and finances to go to a nice school, but how are we going to get 300,000,000 people through universities so they can have these sexy jobs? Doesn't someone have to build a tire?
That's what I don't understand about the modern GOP. I guess the model for America is we will be a nation of holding companies, insurance sales, and financial engineers. We will import just about the entire Third-world to do our laundry, mow our lawns, paint our houses, and work retail. Somehow, employers that have off-shored their workforce will save enough money to pay taxes to support the enormous social welfare benefits these underpaid, Third world workers will need to survive.
I wonder how the peasant workforce votes? I wonder how someone who makes $50K/yr with decent benefits votes? I wonder how they will vote if they are making $30K/yr with no benefits?
Yes, the GOP is the only party stupid enough to drive through the barrio and see the throngs of gangsta-fied Mexican males and think "Wow! Look at all those social conservative Republicans," while looking at union members that want a living suitable to raise a family without government welfare and think, "What a bunch of anti-American, communist, lazy sacks-of-crap."
The question comes down to "why?" Why are Republicans so stupid about their base? Easy - MONEY. Who pays for the GOP? Business interests. Business hates unions, as every dollar that goes into an employee's pocket, is one less dollar that goes into the owner's pocket. In the case of Wall Street, the amount of graft a chieftain can extract from the corporation, in the form of options, is multiplied from savings on the bottom line.
Also, how dare an uneducated union member stand up to the mighty management team. Who do they think they are? After all, the middle manager went to UCSD, and was discovering the wonders of the beer bong, wet T-shirt contests, and war protests, while the union member was serving his country in Kuwait, or working the graveyard shift at that same company, while starting a young family.
Limbaugh/Hannity/Medved all carped about how dumb the electorate was. The talking heads couldn't figure out that just because Wall Street was on a rip, doesn't mean that Joe Six-pack wasn't fearful that his job was going to China or to a Mexican. "Gas Prices! Record DOW JONES! Only 2700 dead G.I.s! Saddam got the death penalty! Record low unemployment!" Such is the perspective of someone in Palm Beach, New York, or Mercer Island. When you are at the top of your profession, and make the money that many "conservative" talk-show hosts make, you don't care if gas is $2/gallon or $20/gallon, but if you are making $50K and staring down the gun at a 40% pay cut, $2.20 gas isn't much better than $3.00. If you and your children never served in the military, 2700 dead servicemen is a punch line, but if your son is in Iraq, because he can't afford the college education that Hedgecock says is necessary for the future of America, it is an ulcer inducing nightmare.
Then there is the war. Yes, the war...You know, the war of liberation of Iraq. The war where we were going to be greeted with throngs of Arabs that were grateful their dictator has been deposed. It is the war of the Neo-con dipsticks that actually believe campaign rhetoric of the universal yearning of mom, apple-pie, and Chevrolet among the world's peasant miscreants.
Junior sold us on the Eternal Global War on Terrorism, and somehow we are still allowing Saudi Arabia to blow in our ear. Weapons of Mass Destruction (post WW2 weapons) are in the hands of an unstable, anti-American dictator that is starving his people and threatening our allies (and it's a real threat), but Kim Jong Il is being protected by the massive economic and military umbrella of the Communist Chinese, which is being supported by the massive economic infusion from corporate America.
I guess the war plan was supposed to go like this:
We invade.
Have a nation-wide celebration and election (Iraq).
Have a world-wide Triumph and ride the orgasm all the way to election season (America).
Hope the Iraqi ethnic troubles are better than the ones in America and don't divide the country.
Hope Iran doesn't take advantage of the chaos to its west.
Hope all that oil stays in stable hands.
I guess Junior didn't understand that while Iraqis hate Hussein, they hate us more. Iran hated Hussein, but they kept their distance. Now, they are using the display of American lack of resolve as a golden invitation to develop their own WMD. My guess is they have Putin in their back pocket, and know that if they make a move, and we attempt to counter, Putin will step in and we will retreat. This will result in permanent American impotence in the world's most important region during the petro-chemical era.
The reason the Iraq war is a failure has nothing to do with military competence, but a failure of leadership and vision. One area is troop strength. We don't have enough to occupy the country, resulting in a futile game of Whack-a-mole.
Second, we lack a long-term vision of the country. Iraq is a construct without respect to ethnic concerns. This is not a matter of busing inner-city schools, but ethnic divisions that go back centuries. This is a deadly hatred. Iraq is three nations that were pacified by a ruthless dictator, much like Yugoslavia under Tito. We had to replace that force with another. Right now, that force is the US government. Wonder why we are hated? Our successor will either be killed, or will be as ruthless as Saddam. There is no other way.
Third, the rest of the Arab/Persian world is just waiting for a power vacuum to exist, and if it exists in the context of flaccid American resolve, all the better.
Americans know when their leadership sucks. Bankrupt, humiliated, and insulted isn't exactly the mindset of a confident GOP voter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Doesn't someone have to build a tire?"
ReplyDeleteVery keen observation. One of the ideas that GOP followers subscribe to with blind faith (what I call 'drinking the kool-aid') is the myth of the self-made man. Good choices lead to prosperity. Anyone struggling financially made bad choices--they deserve what they got. This line of thinking has its merits, but an underlying implication is that if you want a decent lifestyle, you must pursue wealthy careers.
So, riddle me this: who is going to make that tire if we all become doctors, lawyers, and Wall Street finaciers? Those are the good choices, right? So isn't that what we ALL should do?
Truth is, we devalue good hard work that is essential to this nation.
The health care debate highlights this. When having this health care debate one evening, a friend of mine said that the waitress (our hypothetical example) did not deserve health care. She had made bad choices with her life and would 'deserve' health care once she abandoned her low paying job for one that either offered health benefits or paid enough that she could afford the ridiculously expensive insurance premiums. So, apparently no one is going to make tires or serve food to the doctors, lawyers, and bankers.
(Irony alert: this friend was also in a career that Americans don't value--he didn't have health care through his job either. He married a teacher who did have a health plan for the entire family. I guess he didn't see the inconsistency of an argument suggesting that the waitress made bad choices because her job didn't pay enough or offer health care. His good decision was marrying someone who had health insurance. I wonder if his wife knew that he married for something other than love....)
Bottom line: some one does need to make the tires, serve the food, build the houses, fly the airplane, etc. We need to learn to value all the pieces of our economy. As you pointed out, this is what the GOP talking heads get terribly wrong. I guess a talking head makes enough money to look down on the waitress for her bad choices.
I think the essence of the argument is whether or not the wealthy should be able to have access to the American consumer, while bypassing him in the production process.
ReplyDeleteWe seem content (both Dem and Pub) to offshore as many US production jobs as possible, and what we can't offshore, we pass to illegal immigrants. Essentially, those that build tires, serve food, etc have been bypassed and are increasingly finding themselves removed from the production necessary to have a legitimate claim to the economic benefits of living in a free market society.
The "pro biz" types will furiously argue that offshoring lowers production costs and those savings are passed to American consumers, which frees up money to be used to put Americans to work in other fields.
I reject that analysis.
Production and consumption should balance. If production exceeds consumption, we should see an expansion of capital, which ultimately brings down prices. We would normally call this "productivity."
When consumption consistantly outstrips production, we need to go into debt to fuel the consumption, as the fruits of production don't rise to the level to support the demand. In a functioning economy, that phenomenon would cause a shortage of goods and services, raising prices, and stimulating more production.
So, what is happening?
We have found a way to short-circuit the normal yin-yang of the production/consumption interplay, by setting up one group as producers (China) and another as consumers (US). China takes its excess production and cycles it back into the US to prevent inflation in China, while we take that money and fuel more consumption to prevent deflation in the US. This goes until it doesn't, which is probably about now (2009-10).
We end up in debt without a manufacturing base, and China ends up with a massive mislocation of capital and no customer. Both sides starve in that example, but it was a hell of a ride for the Chamber of Commerce types that keep bleating about how offshoring is good for America, when it was only good for Wall Street.
As you pointed out, the business model of being a nation of holding companies, or high priced talent, isn't workable. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that anyone ever believed it would be.
The solution is to constrain economic relationships to highly encourage, or enforce, that production and consumption should be colocated (within similar economies) to prevent such a mismatch. You can't have a viable middle class if it isn't producing, or expected to compete with slaves making $4/day.
"When consumption consistently outstrips production, we need to go into debt to fuel the consumption,"
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah...one more thing.
That deficit between consumption and production that is papered over by debt has a nasty feature. The debt is a claim on future production, as is the interest. In that scenario, you need to produce like mad, just to bring things into balance, and the fruits of that production have been used prior (the debt), or the interest is production that has to be covered neither by consumption or GDP. It goes to interest, which is dead money.
We are going to be digging out of this hole for decades.
Here is another thought...
ReplyDeleteOne reason our tax structure is so flawed, is it is heavily progressive. That is bad enough in itself, but if the underlying economy was sound, it could be remedied.
Our society has essentially taken the bottom half (if not more) out of the meaningful production process, and they can't afford the tax. They simply don't have the money because they don't produce.
What production does happen in the USA happens at the top of the spectrum, which is why the tax falls disproportionately upon them. The more debt we incur due to our production/consumption imbalance, the more we are going to tax what is left of our production. That will obviously weigh upon the producers enough that they will be crushed out of producing more and more, and we will simply swirl the bowl.
We need to stop free trading with slaves and peasants and do it yesterday.
"I think the essence of the argument is whether or not the wealthy should be able to have access to the American consumer, while bypassing him in the production process."
ReplyDeleteThis must be that 'brilliance' you were talking about. Well done! I don't reach all of the same conclusions you do on this topic, but I think this idea gets at the heart of a serious issue. Yes, how is the 'consumer' going to continue to consume without also being a producer and thus gaining the means of consuming in the balanced manner you suggest? I think this falls under the Globalization category. This is one of those accepted wisdom things where I say that everyone has been 'drinking the kool-aid.' It's the Thomas Friedman idea--mindlessly accepted by almost everyone--that globalization is 1) inevitable and 2) benevolent. He calls it "the golden straightjacket." It's good and everyone needs to be doing it, and ultimately will be doing it (globalization). [I've provided links to The Lexus and the Olive Tree in other posts.] Well, I don't accept either of these absolutes regarding globalization.
OK, the forces for globalization are overwhelming. Hence, his inevitability argument has teeth. However, this only holds so long as we accept the Ronald Reagan mantra that "government isn't the solution, government is the problem." (Take a good long satisfying drink of that sweet sweet kool-aid.) Well, boys and girls, government is the only institution of power that can address the offshoring of American capital and accumulation of debt. Our government is currently bought and paid for by Wall Street, so a recurring theme of mine is that without campaign finance reform, there will never be a good government or solutions to these problems. Is Wall Street going to regulate itself and care for the long-term health of the nation? I think that the current economic situation answers that question better than anything I could write.
The second part of Friedman's argument, that globalization is benevolent, is the part that unemployed Americans would vehemently disagree with. The logic here is mind-numbingly simple and you've already hit it. How does a wealthy nation's work force compete with $4 a day labor from poor countries. I think we already know the answer--THEY CAN'T! I get steamed when our economists all tow the party line on unfettered free markets because it all works out in the end. John M Keynes addressed this one already: "In the long run, we're all dead." His point--accurate I believe--is that the forces of economics will balance some day. The question is how much pain (10% unemployment and rising...) is a population willing to endure to get to the long run?
To be clear, I too believe in the free market. It provides material goods better than any other system because it unlocks the self-interested greed that drives people to maximum productivity. Now, how do we keep the greed of the most wealthy and powerful from exploiting everyone else? That is, and always has been, a key function of government--laws to keep the powerful from beating up on the weak. We accept that laws against physical violence are good. Why can't we accept that laws against economic damage are good too? Here's a thought, the economic bullys own the guys making the laws. See a pattern?
I agree that tilting the playing field to allow those with power to shape .gov policy for their own, exclusive benefit (offshoring), has to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteWhat would make you think "campaign finance reform" is the solution?
How about term limits? I see that as a much, much better way to solve the problem.
A friend of mine was asked, "What is the biggest asset on XXXX bank's balance sheet?"
He responded with, "Your Congressman."
Keep the churn in Congress and you will get a .gov that closely reflects the will of the governed.
CFR is a failure, unworkable, and nothing but a back-door way of allowing those that control the national discourse (schools, media, etc) a monopoly on that discourse.
That's why Lefties love it.
Agreed. Campaign finance reform is certainly little more than a pipe dream. I mention it merely to point out the importance of changing the current corporate owned congressman. (On a funny note: one of the comedy shows--I can't recall which one--pointed out how nice it would be if our congressmen wore sponsorship clothing like NASCAR racers. At least then we would know who they really worked for....)
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are preferable without a doubt. However, let me throw the exact same monkey wrench into the term limits gears. Which congress person is going to vote to limit their terms any more than they would vote for campaign finance reform? They already have a monopoly on that discourse too. History shows that power is almost never given up willingly. (And when it is given up willingly, it is usually because the torches and pitchforks are within view....) We the people have to adopt our own method of term limits each election cycle and keep the churning going--something I am entirely on board with, but recognize the difficulty of keeping people motivated cycle after cycle to stay on top of it. Generally people just get tired of the whole darn thing and decide to topple it all. There's a reason revolutions happen from time to time.
As for "Lefties" loving the CFR idea due to some monopoly on discourse, I think they just want something that works, just like the Righties. The real difference is in what the two sides want. Righties appear to want the rich and powerful to stay that way while backing everyone else into the nineteenth century (think Kansas school board in case you didn't pick up on my thinly veiled attack on the religious right). The Lefties are simply progressive. Not socialist. Not communist. Not Nazis. Progressive. They think that all people have inherent value, not just those with a net worth over $1 million. They think that unions give workers some power to extract some of the profit from a company that they, in fact, provide. Yes, Lefties want good governance, civil rights, freedoms, and all the other things that good Righties want. Only the rhetoric is far apart between the two groups. In fact, most Americans share many common values no matter which political group they affiliate with. I think it's time we recognize that and put Rush Limbaugh and Kieth Olberman in a sound proof room and let them yell all they like without whipping the general populace into a frenzy.
Which congress person is going to vote to limit their terms any more than they would vote for campaign finance reform?
ReplyDeleteI think you need some educating on this subject, so pack a lunch, you are going to school.
Let's look at the roll call vote for House Joint Resolution 73 of the 104th Congress where Republicans voted 189-40 to pass a constitutional amendment limiting terms of Members of Congress. On the same vote, the Democrats voted 163-38 to defeat the amendment. Please note that the Republicans voted well in excess of the 2/3 required to pass the issue onto the Senate. The Republicans voted 84% to pass (67% required), and the Democrats voted 81% to kill it off (34% required).
This also was a promise made to the American people, by the Republican House candidates in 1994, and it only took 85 days into the first Republican controlled Congress since the invention of the color TV set to come to a vote.
By contrast, the Democrats held power in that chamber for 14600 consecutive days and never once proposed anything that would remove their PROGRESSIVE statist butts from the levers of power.
See a difference?
So, to answer your question, it would seem that Republicans are much more in tune with a citizen legislature than the PROGRESSIVES ever will be. I will also note, for the record, that no pitchforks or torches were seen anywhere near the Capitol building in the spring of 1995. The Republicans got to taste power for the first time in 4 decades, and one of their first acts was to require that ALL members of Congress lay down their offices and return to the communities they represent.
"We the people have to adopt our own method of term limits each election cycle and keep the churning going--something I am entirely on board with, but recognize the difficulty of keeping people motivated cycle after cycle to stay on top of it."
It is actually WE THE PEOPLE that need the term limits, not the members of Congress. We have the ability to change them every 2 to 6 years, but we steadfastly refuse to change out politicians for the same reason we change out diapers.
We reelect Congress with a 95% reelection rate, when they enjoy a 10% approval rating. The reason for this is that we only get to vote for one guy - our own. "Our guy" is a humble, dedicated servant of the people that takes the largess from the insignificant, trivial matters that comprise economic activity in the other 434 districts, and spend that money on vital projects for the national infrastructure in our district. It is the other 434 rat-bastards that are taking hard food off the plates of our children and spending it on worthless boondoggles in other districts that are just thinly disguised efforts to buy votes for people that can't find a respectable job by their own merits.
That's our problem.
"As for "Lefties" loving the CFR idea due to some monopoly on discourse, I think they just want something that works, just like the Righties."
ReplyDeleteNo they don't. The entire history of the PROGRESSIVE movement has been to acquire and consolidate power by any means necessary. That's what OBAMACARE is all about. It was what HILLARYCARE was all about. It is what Medicare, and SS are all about. It was what the "fairness doctrine" was all about. It is what Affirmative Action is all about.
"he real difference is in what the two sides want. Righties appear to want the rich and powerful to stay that way while backing everyone else into the nineteenth century (think Kansas school board in case you didn't pick up on my thinly veiled attack on the religious right). "
Could you please cite a few examples? What makes you think the Republicans are just trying to do the bidding of the rich? Who is the party of the rich?
BTW, I am noticing that you insist on injecting some of the four Leftist mainstays of political discourse (GOD, GUNS, GAYS, and ABORTION). Have I beaten you so thoroughly thus far that you need to go there? I have not once mentioned religion, yet you have done in many of your postings.
I would rather take you apart on pertinent matters and leave GGG&A for another time. If you insist, I will have no choice but to go 4 for 4 on those subjects.
"The Lefties are simply progressive. Not socialist. Not communist. Not Nazis. Progressive. "
The Progressive movement in the US is an identifiable movement that was dominated by the moderate Republican's favorite POTUS (TRoos), and every Democrat since the dawn of the 20th Century. This movement can be studied and quantified as to their methods, motives, and allies.
On a subject for another day, I can demonstrate how the Progressives, especially those in the Democrat Party, were fellow travelers, admirers, and allies of all the filth you said they were not - socialists, fascists, and communists. All three of those ideologies came directly from Progressivism. From time to time, the Lefties revert to the "Progressive" label when "liberal" invokes reflex vomiting among the voting public, but they also had to drop "Progressive" when their allies finished on the wrong side in WW2.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Wilson were all Progressives and were all Statists, as that is what "Progressive" means in the historical context.
Don't be fooled.
Well, I packed my lunch for the schooling, but only got a couple of bites down before finding some pretty big holes in your argument. First, thanks for citing some actual evidence. That is the foundation of understanding—getting beyond mere opinion. I know that you want Republicans to be angelic and all, so it’s nice to see something that supports your argument (at least superficially). However, citing evidence Fox “News” style is inadequate. Let me explain. Oh, get some aspirin ready because this is going to be a little painful.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the roll call vote for House Joint Resolution 73 of the 104th Congress where Republicans voted 189-40 to pass a constitutional amendment limiting terms of Members of Congress. On the same vote, the Democrats voted 163-38 to defeat the amendment. Please note that the Republicans voted well in excess of the 2/3 required to pass the issue onto the Senate. The Republicans voted 84% to pass (67% required), and the Democrats voted 81% to kill it off (34% required).
What you’ve cited here is factually accurate, as far as the vote count numbers go. Your follow-on math is suspect, however. There were 435 members of the House at the time. So when you say that “Republicans voted well in excess of the 2/3 required,” I’d ask you to check the batteries in your calculator. 2/3 of 435 is 291. How do 189 Republican votes for the amendment equal 2/3? In fact, even with the Democratic votes for the amendment, the total was 227, 64 short of a 2/3 majority. I think the spin you were trying to put on this is that the majority of the Republicans were OK with this amendment. I would like to point out that if all the Republicans voted for this measure, the total count would be 230. In other words, Republicans never had enough votes for a 2/3 majority. Even if we add the 38 Democratic votes for the amendment it only comes to 268—still short of the 2/3 majority required for a Constitutional amendment.
This is an example of using the math you need to support a position you want to believe (or want others to believe). Mark Twain famously said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. His folksy wisdom was that we need not be dazzled or impressed by numbers—they lie too, especially when people want to tell a particular story. Fox “News” has perfected this technique, learned from years of listening to Rush Limbaugh. I will point out simply that this measure came nowhere close to passing in the GOP controlled House or the GOP controlled Senate. Why is that?
Well, I’m glad I ask myself that rhetorical question because it allows me to reiterate what I believe is key in this age of “news” being devoid of facts. We are still able to use our brains, in spite of whatever disinformation the talking head on TV throws our way. Like in most cases, we can get closer to the truth by looking at incentives. Who has the motivation to do what? Did the Republicans really have an incentive to limit their own success in Congress any more than the Democrats did? Of course not. This was an obvious political game to take the easily won moral high ground in the eyes of the American public. In truth, term limits were never going to pass and everyone knew it, including Newt Gingrich and the new republican majority. Politically brilliant—no way to lose on that one. (Newt served for twenty years in the House—he could have stepped down any time if he really believed in term limits.) http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/us/washington-talk-term-limits-change-nobody-wants.html?pagewanted=1
To bring this story into the present, the current rhetoric claims that the Democrats are responsible for everything—budget deficit, two wars, unemployment, etc. If the Republicans in control of Congress in 1995 couldn’t get everything they wanted (or pretended to want), can we agree that who controls the majority does not control everything? We need to be consistent in our arguments. Wanting something to be true is not the same as it actually being true.