The GOP and its base

William Rivers Pitt writes (in TRUTHOUT): ”  George W. Bush left office with a public approval rating under 30 percent. Less than 30 percent of Americans currently describe themselves as Republicans. The AMALGAM of evangelical Christians, hardcore gun-rights fanatics, anti-tax, anti-immigrant and anti-choice voters who make up the base of the Republican Party amount to less than 30 percent of the overall electorate.  These numbers reflect the PRESENT state of affairs for the GOP: they are a party CONTROLLED by their base, the same group of Americans whose SUPPORT for Bush never wavered, and who still call themselves Republican despite the SERIAL DEBACLES  of the last decade. These are the voters who LISTEN to Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and Beck, who watch Fox News to the exclusion of every other network, who think evolution is a FRAUD because dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, and who believe President Obama is a SECRET Islamic terrorist communist Jew with a bum birth certificate.

These voters have spent the last 30 years being the single most reliable voting bloc in the entire electorate, and this has come to present a potentially lethal PROBLEM for the Republican Party in general, and for their future electoral prospects specifically. For a long time, the loyalty of their voter base propelled the GOP into a position of complete dominance – if live, man-eating jaguars rained from the sky on election day, the GOP base would still turn out en masse to pull the handle for every candidate on the ballot with an “R” after their name, a fact that made the difference in a half-dozen midterms and at least two presidential elections.

    That loyalty made the GOP base the most muscular part of the party, but it is that very strength which is now TEARING the party to pieces. Consider the lesson that was provided during the 2008 Republican Party primary season. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee became the darling of the GOP base, earning roughly 50 percent of the GOP base vote in virtually every Red-state primary. The other, more broadly popular GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, needed those votes to prevail, but were forced to fight for the base-voter scraps left by Huckabee. This lack of base-voter support was what ultimately doomed their campaigns…

Huckabee stayed in the race just long enough to CRIPPLE Giuliani and Romney before fading away himself, and in the end, John McCain wound up winning the nomination pretty much by DEFAULT.

    The PROBLEM for McCain in the 2008 general election is the SAME one currently affecting the Republican Party at large: he could not win without the support of the GOP base, but the core beliefs of that base were so OUT OF TOUCH with mainstream America that McCain likewise could NOT win if he catered to them. He was forced to flee his previous positions on immigration, climate change, taxes and campaign finance reform to satisfy base voters who already roundly despised him because of his positions on immigration, climate change, taxes and campaign finance reform, and this ultimately deranged his whole campaign. Picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate was yet another sop to base voters, and is now widely believed to have been the last NAIL in his electoral coffin…a whole lot of Faustian chickens are coming home toROOST in the GOP’s crumbling coop. The party courted those base voters, championed them, pandered to them and ultimately empowered them. Now, that power is SUBSUMING the party, and for the time being, there is no end in sight. ” 

(EMPHASIS MINE)

SEE: http://www.truthout.org/060809R

Regan pulled the trigger.

Writes Mr. Krugman: “This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. … All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.”

So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

He was, as it happened, WRONG about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the ORIGINS of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key WRONG turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly RICH, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with long-standing rules of fiscal prudence. Traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits ONLY in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

 

The increase in public debt was, however, DWARFED  by the rise in private debt, made POSSIBLE by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest LEGACY. And it’s the gift that KEEPS on taking.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to TURN the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S&L crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that DEREGULATION in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ENDED New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans SAVED almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was UP to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much RISK with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.”

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=KRUGMAN&st=cse

EMPHASIS MINE

Empathy vs the GOP

George Lakoff: “EMAPTHY is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the CAPACITY to put oneself in the shoes of others – not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one’s countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially THOSE who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy EXTENDSwell beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of REAL rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

    Progressives CARE about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy – a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president’s stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis….In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a MAJOR desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have toPUT yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that SOCIAL causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge WITHOUT empathy is a judge UNFIT for a democracy.

    President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms – a life story that would lead her to UNDERSTAND people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to APPRECIAYE the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.

    Empathy in this sense is a THREAT to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of “justice.” It is no surprise that empathy would be a MAJOR conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.” 

EMPHASIS Mine

SEE: http://www.truthout.org/053109A

Financial Fallacy: divided governments

Chris Bowers writes in Open Left:”In the closing days of the 2008 campaign, John McCain repeatedly warned against the supposed dangers of one-party rule. His argument was not particularly convincing at the time, but it did echo a longstanding political LEGEND about the benefits of one-party rule. Supposedly, a DIVIDED government limits government spending and corruption. This argument was popular in the 1990’s, and some conservatives were echoing it back in 2007 even before the presidential election seemed a foregone conclusion. In 2009, it has become a common mantra for Republican elected officials and operatives.

The main problem with this argument is that recent events have proven it false. Government spending does not increase at a slower rate when one party controls the White House and another party controls Congress. This argument was turned into a LAUGHINGSTOCK only five weeks before the presidential election, when both McCain and Obama supported the Wall Street bailout, a majority of Senators of both partiessupported the bailout, and when 73% of House Democrats and 46% of House Republicans supported the bailout. No matter which party controlled the House, the Senate, or the White House, with numbers like that the bailout would have passed anyway.

During the final year of divided government–FY 2008 to FY 2009–federal spending increased by 6.67% of GDP, mainly because of the bailout. Outside of the two world wars, that was more than double the spending increase of any other year in the history of the country. It was larger than the increase in federal spending during the previous fifty years (1949 to 2008) combined, during which time federal spending grew by 5.87% of GDP. By virtue of the bi-partisan Wall Street bailout, that one year of divided government INCREASED government spending–and facilitated the corruption behind the financial meltdown–more than the twenty years of one-party government had done combined.

Republicans may DECRY one-party rule, but the argument simply won’t work after the bi-partisan Wall Street bailout increased government spending and complicity in corruption at an all-time record level. In 2012, rather than decrying one-party rule, they will probably need toFIND a nominee who opposed the bailout all along in order to have a shot at ending one-party rule (continuing economic difficulty for the country will also be required, of course).  That could be the real Howard Dean moment for the right-wing grassroots to throw off the shackles of their party leadership. Unfortunately for Republicans, the list of their Senators who opposed the bailout is not exactly loaded with presidential material:

 

Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Cochran (R-MS), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Enzi (R-WY), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

GOOD luck digging a President out of that pile.

EMPHASIS MINE

see:http://www.openleft.com/

Golly Gee, GOP: Guns, Gods, and Gays

From:Roberto Dr. Cintli RodriguezNew America Media.” Republicans, who continue to be rejected by the U.S. electorate at the polls, have decided that the party of Lincoln needs an extreme makeover. Yet Republicans seem to think that the GOP simply needs to change its image, as opposed to fundamentally changing the party itself.

Some Republicans believe that the GOP must broaden its tent, and change its mantra of “Guns, Gays and God.” Others seem to think the party should strengthen its conservative base, and that the new message should include: “Go home!” …enter the National Council for a New America (NCNA), a series of town hall meetings ..

This council appears to be cognizant that a SHIFT in that ultra-nationalistic direction has the potential to change not simply the GOP’s narrative, but the national narrative itself.

They are up AGAINST the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Dick Cheney and other extreme right-wing forces who FEAR that the nation — NOT simply the GOP — is in danger of losing its national narrative, the MYTHS and legends that have been part of the national psyche and character since its founding..Arguably, the more conservative wing of the American political spectrum is CORRECT: the OLD America they cling to no longer exists. And yet, the narrative that the more moderate council longs for — one that VIEWS America as the beacon of the world, as the land of truth, freedom and liberty and justice for all — is also a MYTH…That narrative has always DOWNPLAYED genocide, land theft and removal, slavery, segregation and legalized discrimination. Nowadays, it DOWNPLAYS border walls, racial profiling and an ever-expanding racialized prison system. The narrative has also downplayed the notion of empire and militarism, instead converting these imperial projects with the NOTION of a God-given right to “civilize” or dominate the world. This is the idea of Manifest Destiny. It is what drove our recent president, George W. Bush in his war against the Arab and Islamic world; he was on a MISSION from God. This is why U.S. and international laws were easily ignored or discarded; he was ANSWERING to a higher authority…In this sense, both wings of the Republican Party are SIMILAR; both want to promote great American mythologiessome within the GOP rightly fear that a Dobbs-immigration obsessed nation — which clamors for 2,000 miles of militarized walls along the U.S.-Mexico border — will DRIVE moderates away from the Republican Party. This is where the STRUGGLE over image takes place, though it is difficult to discern a difference. The Dobbs wing is BRAZENLY anti-immigrant, though it is always insistent that they are ONLY anti-illegal immigrant — not anti-immigrant..

Whether they are conservative or moderate, Republicans seem to agree that the United States has the inherent right to WAGE war on the world. The ONLY difference is that some believe that this right comes directly from God, whereas the others believe it is simply a cultural or even genetic right — due to American exceptionalism.

The real question is whether Democrats present different views on this topic. Some observers are quick to note that on the issue of the national narrative, there is little or no difference between the parties. These same observers are quick to note that President Barack Obama is but the latest steward for the military-imperial interests that control the nation. While it is TRUE that change does not occur overnight, there is little doubt that whoever is at the helm DOES make a difference. Yet, we know that positive change generally COMES from the bottom. Whether one president can change the national narrative is another matter.”  (EMPHASIS mine).

The only open issues is how does reproductive choice fit into the GOP agenda?

 

see:http://www.alternet.org/story/139929/the_gop_clings_to_guns,_gays,_god,_and_”go-home”/

Differed Gratification

Having been politically active from 1963 on, I saw the GOP recover, over many years, from the party out of control to the one in: listening to the advocates of the new minority party today, some of them think that it will be a short road back – lets hope not!

How do we stay on top?

o Deliver solutions, not problems.

o Set reasonable expectations.

o Stay on message

o Use teachable moments to demonstrate what has failed, why it failed, and how we are going to repair.

This side now…

Having been persona non grata since the late (19) 60’s, it is a refreshing change for us to be on top.  I don’t have much data on how conservative R’s felt in 1933-40, but I do know how they appear to feel now:

o Still think the destruction and failure that began on Jan 20, 1981 was progress.

o Still operate under the delusion that they are on top.

o Think that taxes are the root of all evil.

Let’s hope that they stay on this message!

GOP and Extremists

From John Ridely, HuffPost: “EMPTY of better ideas — of any ideas — of how to REMAIN relevant, the reactionary wing of the conservative movement has chosen to quit faking respectability and get back to doing what they do best: cranking up the HATE to eleven.

This is the week we have lived:

A week when Texas Governor Rick Perry — a man with presidential aspirations — gets comfortable being flippant about the idea SECESSION , raising the specter of both the anti-civil rights movement and the Civil War

A week when Texas Republican State Rep. Betty Brown (what is it with Texas?) told a hearing on voter registration that if Asians wanted to avoid problems at the polls they needed to CHANGE their names to something that’s “easier for US to deal with.”

A week when Illinois Republican Congressman Mark Kirk said he thought the people of Illinois “are ready to SHOOT” anyone who’s going to raise taxes.

A week when the Caucasian Stepin Fetchit Glenn Beck — which is more of a slam against Lincoln Perry than it is Glenn — thought it was humorous to take on the guise of our president and pantomime him pouring gas on the average citizen before setting a match to him…….These may be the last, desperate days of reactionary, anti-American Conservatism. But in the manner of a rabid animal backed against a wall, these are its most dangerous as well.”

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-conservatives-dangero_b_188514.html

From the Parado Principle to tea bags…

80% of our national debut has been accumulated under Republican Presidents, so why are they whining now?

N.B.:  The Parado Principle, often known as the rule of 80/20, was first used as a principle of inventory management, which was used in the pre just in time era, and meant that 80% of sales came from 20% of products, or 80% of inventory value was in 20% of the items.  It has other meanings now:

 “It has many names-the Parado Principle, the Principle of Imbalance, and the 80/20 rule–but they all mean the same thing. Richard Kock, author of The 80/20 Principle explains, “The 80/20 principle states that there is an inbuilt imbalance between causes and results, inputs and outputs, and effort and reward.” In fact, this consistent mathematical relationship indicates that 80 percent of output comes from 20 percent of inputs, not only in the business world, but also in virtually every aspect of life.”

see: http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/careers/articles/simmons_six_career_secrets.asp

Love, war, and economic disaster

may indeed  make surprising bedfellows, an example of which was the Sierra Club sponsored event at the Great Lakes Science Center in Cleveland  March 31st on the Blue Green Alliance: a coming together of Blue (Labor Unions), and Green (‘tree hugging’ Sierra Club types ) – a concurrence neither the  environmentalists nor the ‘hard hats’ of the late sixties could ever have imagined.

The panelists were:

o Jesus Leon Santos – a Mexican progressive agriculturist, and winner of the 2008 Goldman Environmental prize.

o Jim Clark – VP of IUE-CWA.

o Margrete Strand – Sierra Club National office.

The theme was the impact of “Free” Trade on Labor and the ecology, and the promise of a new, Green, sustainable, economy.

Senior Santos presentation was an inspiring story of a grass roots organization which is working on recovering savaged land through reforestation, and encouraging others to buy local food products.

Mr. Clark gave a specific example of how the CFL bulb had been developed in Ohio, and then made oversees to avoid both living wages and environmental concerns.

Ms. Strand summarized the Blue Green concept, and pointed the way to action.

Mr. John Ryan of Sherrod’s office(former CWA) also spoke.

Questions and answers followed.

Those present were rewarded.

N.B.: Senior Santos provided an answer to the ‘ WWJD’ question: He’d plant trees!