[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.
If only the same thing would happen with the Democrats!
[O]nce elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.
But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.
Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election....
In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
The problem isn't "Tea Party Republicans" at all.
The real problem is the failure of Democrats to seize the banner of economic populism. I don't say it's too late, but with health care deform sucking all the oxygen out of the room until Reid manages to drag some bill, any bill over the finish line in December, "too late" is getting close.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
So can it be third party time now?
If one's going to start up it should start up soon.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
The two third party ideas I heard down in DC...
were National Women's Party and National Health Care Party. It was pointed out that single issue third parties (like health care) had a good track record. Thoughts?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well I know we've been talking about a National Health Care
Party.
Searching for 'national healthcare party' on Google brings up this website, which at least makes the pretense of being copyrighted. So maybe someone's already started a National Health Care Party? I'm not sure.
If the health care bill passes with the Stupak Amendment inside I think you could have a big rallying cry for a National Women's Party. Since women vote in higher numbers than men, and since women tend to tilt further to the left than men, it would be a good constituency to try and gain.
More than anything, a third party is built around candidates. We need to find people willing to buck the Democratic and Republican Parties in a few key states and districts. I would almost say to see who, if anyone, we can recruit, and let their firmest passions dictate the direction of our party.
But we'd need bigger organizations on board, obviously. The two biggest and most obvious targets for support would be Physicians for a National Health Plan and the AFL-CIO. The latter would suggest that we concentrate our efforts in the Rust Belt. If we could get even some union support that would give us a big leg up.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
thoughts, i has them
nwp!
although i really like andre's suggestion for a liberal party too.
Why not The Liberal Party?
I mean, let's be audacious! There's the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Liberals. For a byline: the others tried to define us, now we will define us. If most Americans hold liberal positions on most issues, why not be honest with them and define how we see those issues. Certainly 676 is 'liberal', a woman's right to have complete jurisdiction over her own body is 'liberal', ending the ill conceived and executed American empire is 'liberal', etc., etc., and being strong in defending our country is 'liberal', so why don't we become the most straightforward and honest of the national parties?
+100
I've talked with many a conservative and if you spell out liberalism for what it is, its not impossible to gain their respect if not outright support. BTW, this is a big reason why I've tried to get us to talk more about fundamental principles of liberalism, makes the conversations easier.
Only tyrants rig elections.
What's the conservative theory of justice?
Serious question (and small-c conservative...)
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
All the same, let's pick regions and get candidates first.
We know what we want, broadly speaking, from a political party- we know what our priorities are. Let's find support groups- labor unions, activist groups, existing parties- that would be willing to rally around those priorities, let's find the areas of the country that would be most susceptible to accepting those priorities (and they might be in some unlikely places), and let's find men and women that can sell those priorities to the body politic.
We can worry about names and semantics once we've started to bring people together.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Salt water versus fresh water politics
Us salty, bitter folks understand that on the issues, the Dems are willing to sell out their voting base for the corporate troughs. And many of us are starting to realize that the whole "Dems are weak" meme is a way to let the Dems off the hook when they sell out. The selling out is deliberate and planned. The belief that Dems and access bloggers act in good faith--the fresh water politics--is essentially obsolete. Krugman has, on this issue, been tied to the old fresh water school of politics and doesn't bother to consider the mounting evidence from the salt water folks.
Only tyrants rig elections.
The party should beget the leader.
When BO got the nomination, especially considering the manner in which he treated the Clintons, he should have been told in no uncertain terms, the party begets the leader. If he doesn't give what we want, we walk, and we will beget another more worthy leader. I don't think we should look for someone to follow in this new Liberal
Party. We should look for someone who is willing to follow after we've coalesced. More than anything we should explain the Liberal position on everything to anybody who is willing to listen, as loudly as possible. The text of 676 is a fuckin model of Liberal brevity. You want Liberal(?):
SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.
(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including--
(1) primary care and prevention;
(2) inpatient care;
(3) outpatient care;
(4) emergency care;
(5) prescription drugs;
(6) durable medical equipment;
(7) long term care;
(
mental health services;
(9) the full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry);
(10) substance abuse treatment services;
(11) chiropractic services; and
(12) basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
(c) No Cost-sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
Goddam, that's fuckin beautiful!
even obama has been known to notice the simplcity
All right, then, let's put issues first.
But we still need to get people together first and foremost. If we're serious about all this, and I want to think I am, we need to start contacting relative organizations.
Although before we even do that, we should probably try to rally the B- C- and D-list blogosphere.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
one-issue parties
Yes, it's true: the only successful third party in American history was a one-issue party (the Republican party, which when it was founded in the mid-19th C was the antislavery party because the Democrats were solidly proslavery by 1850 and the Whigs fell apart over the issue.)
Third parties can be successful, too, even if they don't metastisize into one of the two parties in our two-party system.
I favor reviving the National Women's Party myself, in the manner of Minnesota's DFL or New York's Working Families Party.
Working Families Party...
... has the strategy of endorsing rather than running its own candidates, yes?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi