Most of the news today has been about the upset victory in Delaware of a Tea Party-backed candidate (O'Donnell) over the establishment candidate (Castle) and how it has far-reaching consequences for the current Republican Party.
But it also has serious repercussions for the whole nation.
As Yglesias mentions in that link above, the political party structure in the United States is geared to two-party balance (third parties have been glorious failures at the national level: the few times there's been multi-party systems (1850s) it was a fight between one monolithic institution of the Democrats and a set of smaller remnants of the Whigs duking it out for the right to be the final challenger (which the Republicans finally earned); or a serious radical movement (1890s) where the third party Populists were consumed by the better-organized Democrats. To quote Yglesias: "Ultimately, the two-party system operates near equilibrium, and so the internal state of both parties counts. It’s better for progressives and better for the country for Republicans to field strong, reasonable candidates." Like it or not, we've got two parties - Democrat and Republican - and like it or not it hurts the equilibrium of the nation's politics when one party (The Republicans) are getting overwhelmed by Teh Crazies.
O'Donnell's victory is merely one of a long line of victories by the Far Right - not at the national level of creating elected leaders - over their internal party rivals of moderates and centrists that the wingnuts labeled "RINOs". The effect is two-fold: it drives out the moderate, sensible candidate that has a good work record and a habit of, you know, actually doing stuff in office (it also takes that moderate's supporters along with him/her); and it makes it easier for the opposing party (Democrats) to field their own less-crazy candidate that tends to win and keep the now-crazed party out of actual political power. There are exceptions, of course: Massachusetts's Sen. Brown was a Tea-Bagger candidate who won a prized seat (Ted Kennedy's old liberal lion throne)... but only because the Democrats went with one of the worst campaigners in that state's history. The more notable examples are the Congressional campaigns of NY-23, or the fates of Lincoln Chafee and Wayne Gilchrist, or pretty much a lot of other Club for Greed failures over the past 20 years or so.
It's been written elsewhere that for the Far Right/Club for Greed/Teabagger crowd, this Pyrrhic victory/Scorched Earth practice of killing their own successful candidates and replacing them with more crazed and less electable ones is exactly what they want. In part, they don't WANT to actually win in November - getting into office leads to the complex issue of, you know, actually doing what they pledged to do, meaning either total chaos or total destruction - they just want to seize control of the whole GOP mechanism (it's far cheaper than starting up your own third party, for example). The other part of their ideology that WANTS to win the general elections really only wants to do so in order to prove how POPULAR (See! Real Americans ARE Right-Wing just like us!) and how RIGHT they are on their key issues (abortion, sex education, and tax cuts for the rich) which truly do fly against how the actual majority of Americans think (majorities are comfortable with abortion-with-limits, masturbation in private, and tax cuts for the middle class not the rich). That part of the Far Right's mindset that wants to win also wants to impose their will in very scary fashions (I am not joking when I say that a Republican-controlled Congress in 2011 will start with Obama's impeachment over his Hawaiian birth certificate and go downhill from there).
Andrew Sullivan's fevered hope that a Republican win in November could be a good thing (are YOU MAD?) - "...the more anti-debt and anti-spending their rhetoric becomes and the plainer it is that serious defense and entitlement cuts are necessary for the problem to be solved, the more I'd like to see the GOP be deprived of their obstructionist no-responsibility posturing of the last two years. I'd like to see their bluff called on spending to escape the current impasse and get to a real debate rather than a phony one. If they win back the House, as it seems inevitable they will, they will have to offer something at last instead of criticizing everything in comically tired tropes and waiting for 2012..." - is one of the weaker maybe-it-won't-kill-us pleas to God I'd ever read.
Dear Andrew: the Republicans are NOT bluffing. Their game of Obstructionism wasn't just an attempt to force Obama's platform to be delayed or denied: it was also a genuine attempt to force Obama and the Democrats to accede to a wholly-far-right-wingnut agenda. "Either make the laws just like we want 'em, Barack, or we vote en masse against them, and threaten filibusters in Senate on every one! And we can get some of our Blue Dog Dem allies side with us, neener!" Even though a vast majority of Americans voted AGAINST Republicans in 2006 and 2008, the GOP and their media allies remained sincerely convinced that the nation was still "Center-Right" and refused any sensible bipartisanship: the Republican idea of bipartisan between 2006 and now is/was "It Has to Be Republican-Approved".
Dear Andrew: your other plea - that a win in November would force the Republicans to grow up and govern - is on its face wrong, and will not happen. If the Republicans win, it will only reinforce their beliefs that A) Americans are truly on their side (rather than disappointed with Democratic efforts or else distracted by Republican lies and fearmongering), and B) their efforts in Obstructionism works, meaning their behavior can get WORSE, and C) that they now have a mandate by the voting public to push their agenda however they see fit. And that agenda is obvious: Drive Obama from office by any means necessary: impeachment, embarrassment, harassment, government shutdowns, whatever it takes. Republicans are NOT interested in serious governing - read Matt Taibbi's work - they are interested in winning elections, debasing Democrats, and stealing from government coffers to make their business buddies richer. No matter how much you want to wish it so, Andrew, if the Republicans are in control of even the House by 2011 it will be bad for the nation, bad for the world, and bad for the next decade.
As of right now, there's been a huge rift within the Republican ranks over O'Donnell's victory. Karl Rove, of all people, had gone public with his disapproval (and is now getting flack from his once-media allies): Mitt Romney, desperate for relevancy in 2012, has come to O'Donnell's defense, and the NRSC pulled a quick 180 where they first refused to aid O'Donnell but now is sending her funds.
This is my plea to the whole nation: ARE YOU FUCKING MAD? Stop Voting Republican. Now and For The Next Ten Generations. It's the only way to save ourselves from the wingnut madness.
Breitbart Delendus Est.
No comments:
Post a Comment