David Harsanyi, Denver Post:
The Dems have pulled together a helpful guide called “Tea Party Contract with America,” which, despite its various chilling exaggerations, is actually not an altogether awful agenda compared to the one being implemented in Washington.
If Republicans were smart — lol, right? — they would welcome a debate on radicalism and extremism. A radical, after all, is one who “departs markedly from the usual or customary.” Wasn’t that the promise of the Obama presidency? In that case, the past two years have been a study in economic radicalism.
First, the GOP should concede that they do have a few quirky candidates running around the country who lack the political sophistication of, say, an Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters.
Are these Republican oddballs a bit batty? For sure. But unlike the “stimulus” legislation, a plan to uncover the Hawaiian bunker with the president’s Indonesian passport probably won’t cost taxpayers $1 trillion and millions of jobs.
What’s worse, after all? Suffocating the economy or being a bit cautious?
Also, please keep in mind: Nationalizing health care is not radical. Neither is tripling the budget deficit in two years.
Republicans can — if they stick to free market rhetoric and stay away from any insinuation of armed insurrection — continue to be seen as the more moderate party. A recent Pew Poll, for instance, indicates that 56 percent of independents view the Democratic Party as more liberal than they are, compared to 39 percent that view the Republican Party as more conservative.
[…]
What do you do when your sweeping restructuring of the economy miserably fails? Easy.
1. Blame Bush. (A word of warning: At this economic trajectory, it won’t be long before you get people reminiscing.)
2. Accuse your opponents of being the extremists.
Well, if the Democrats want to talk about crazy ideas, the Republicans have about two years and a few trillion dollars worth of them to discuss with the public.
The idea that tethering the GOP to the Tea Party will weaken the GOP among moderate voters is a cynical ploy — one based on the Dems’ now lengthy strategy of casting the Tea Party as a faux grass-roots movement peopled by cranks, religious bigots, and racists. Having created this narrative — and the activist media having dutifully aided in perpetuating it — the Democrats are now hoping that it has become established Truth among enough independents, “moderates,” and disillusioned liberals that members of those groups, fearful of the gathering storm of theocratic racist bitterclingerosity, might hold their noses and vote left.
Ironically, we on the right are more likely to scoff at the tethering of the Tea Partiers to the GOP establishment. And while many of us would welcome such a return of small government and classically liberal principles to the modern-day GOP, we aren’t fooling ourselves that a vote for the GOP is a vote for the Tea Party “agenda.”
Would that it were so.
Conservatives / classical liberals / libertarians need to vote on more than merely anti-incumbent sentiment; they need to find those candidates that best track with the principles upon which this country was founded and built, and support those candidates even if it means a more palatable — or better, politically safe — candidate is ushered from the playing field.
As I noted on NPR in the run-up to the 2008 elections, if we’re going to have statists in office (and I’d argued regularly that McCain is a statist), I’d just as soon they have a D in front of their names. That way, when the country goes to hell under such stewardship — as it most assuredly has — the choices for the electorate going forward will be clear and stark.
The GOP establishment hasn’t learned that lesson. Nor have many GOP boosters. Nor, perhaps, have many Americans. Yet.
A shame, that.
Third-party candidates are not viable, because to the vast majority of people who don’t follow politics very closely, any party other than D or R is even more full of cranks than the Ds or Rs. However, the GOP has proven itself to have a tin ear when it comes to listening to the clamoring for non-statism that the Tea Party movement represents, which means that it needs to be changed or at least out-maneuvered. One way to accomplish this is to support candidates individually (as stated in this piece), rather than the GOP as a whole.
I’m not sure how long it will take the GOP to get the message. It may not happen soon enough, but if not, so be it. I am no longer interested in voting in a slower version of the same statist agenda that the Democrats are pushing these days.
We need to scrap the political class, and start over with rookies. That said, Sharon Angle scares the hell out of me, given that she’s resurrecting a dead man.
Great post.
If Coke pissed into half their soda cans, they wouldn’t be surprised when people stopped trusting the brand.
The Tea Party Movement IS and Independent movement. Independents know what it is about because they are the core of the Tea Party Movement. This will fail …
As I’ve been saying, off and on for the past three years or so: Us, too, but we’re cheaper! is not a viable campaign slogan.
Regards,
Ric
“Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.”
— Another Barry
– The Left, and their pollsters, seem to always do well when they run against Boooooosh, post 2004.
– How exactly will that fly in Nov. and 2012 again?
– This poll is a joke. The polls demographic is Lefties and young turks. They didn’t even try to hide it.
– Our side doesn’t neutralize this sort of propaganda enough by running skewed polls ourselves.
– It’s only Fair!
It is profoundly discouraging to see that the current Republican leadership or establishment determinative of that leadership, while they must be cognizant, at least of the margins, of the political trends at work, have not managed to self-correct to align themselves with necessity. How is it that the anti-Obama Democrats can move in their own way and these cannot?
If Boehner and Cantor, to pick two from the lot, refuse to move themselves, due to idiosyncratic causes, how is it that the mass of operators in the Party will not undertake to [re]move them? It can only be that they too don’t see the writing on the wall, or that if they do, they haven’t the first clue how to interpret it. This incapacity, if such it is, should in itself be disqualifying in a political man.
We in turn, must want a better standard in choosing our politicians, not delimited, I think, by a set of policies alone, but by characteristics of thought – better habits of mind – apparently now lacking.
Imagine that.
Yeah, I know I’m Captain Obvious.
The GOP calls me about once per month asking for money. A few times, I told them they aren’t going to get any. The rest of the time I hang up.
Lemme suggest that the first characteristic ought to be that the person to choose does not want the job. Desire for the job is in itself a disqualifier.
Take Tom Sowell for instance. Would he, in a million years, choose to be a Congressman or Senator? No fucking way. Tough shit Tom, we need you. Get to work. Finding 535 such people in a population of 312 million shouldn’t be all that hard. Don B., look out, you’re next.
To drift a little further on this current, the second criterion might be found in the reaction of someone picked out for service.
Does she react with “Oh my God! Thank you for the complement you do me! I’d be honored to accept this nomination.”?
Bang, write her off, she’s done.
Instead the reaction should be more like kicking and screaming “Why do you hate me so?”. The closer to that, the better.
The Dems are aware of what thin ice they are on. So, with the help of their friends in the MSM, they are trying to deflect blame more broadly and further back than ever before: Reagan insider: ‘GOP destroyed U.S. economy’
– Don’t know sdfeer if that’s a winning formula, going for the “if nominated I will not run” crowd.
– Wasn’t it the “do nothing” sort of Congress under Boooosh that got us here in the first place? I don’t mean just legislatively. The Dems hammered Bush and the Congress relentlessly, and the Reps just sat there and did nothing in response, emulating Bush and the WH.
– TSI – Do you really think that’s going to fly with voter anger continuing to build with each passing day?
– At some point even the most out of touch Hilljack will start to ask “Why the fuck are you talking about dead guys and the past. What the hell are you going to do about the economy right now?.”
– Most people can read the numbers on their pay stub, if they even have a pay stub. I don’t think any of the standard ploys will stand up to this perfect storm.
Take a moment and think it over. 535 out of 312 million. Do we want the positions manned by persons personally inconvenienced, yet of excellent experience, knowledge, judgment and humility, or by persons of marginal competence, with records filled by folly who excel only at grasping self-regard?
Big Bang Hunter:
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
– I’ve seen this movie before. It’s name was Carter.
FWIW-I am admittedly one of your garden variety “low information” voters-the commentariat here is much more well informed than I am, or ever will be for that matter (or really have cared to be).
Having said that, one thing that I don’t see much in discussions of needed changes is how the sausage is made in Washington-the convoluted, arcane, and maddening rules of legislation,in which even the best of intentions disappear like smoke in wind, and expose the most cynical aspects of the charlatans on both sides of the aisle. Boys club, indeed.
IMHO, reform and change will require changes in the way things are done and take away the ways the big boys are able to cover their pasty white asses.
Now, I am off to select a suitable ale to while away my evening. Thanks for listening.
Lemme suggest that the first characteristic ought to be that the person to choose does not want the job.
I don’t want the job either, but I’d also suck at it.
So there’s that.
I don’t mean to suggest that our every choice will be perfect by any means. But when we reflect on the presence in the congress of such persons as M. Waters or A. Grayson (I could go on), we will with surety do far better in the aggregate.
Again, I implore, stop and mull it over awhile.
I’ve never gotten one of those calls. Probably because the last ten times I responded to one of their “answer this survey and please donate” mass mailings I answered the survey.
Honestly.
And in detail.
At some point even the most out of touch Hilljack will start to [wonder]
Well sure, but that’ll still leave us short the hallsofivyjacks.
So.. the choices are the Party of Big Government and the Party of Really Big Government? We are so fucked….
That would be us doing it wrong again Swen.
Under that scenario, as with most elections the last umpty-ump years, someone else (usually the candidate) makes the critical decision, leaving the voters to be lazy and feckless, with either shit for a choice or shit for a choice. Either shit or shit isn’t much of a choice at all, is it?
When do we wake up and say, “Hey, we’re getting off this bus full of bozos.” Enough. We’ve got another idea.
I agree with you in principle sdferr and I’m one of those who believe we’d be better governed by the first 535 names in the phone book than the current crop of bozos. The devil is in the details. Your proposal would require a complete revamping of our political system — not that it wouldn’t be a good idea — but such sweeping reform isn’t going to happen fast enough to save us in the short term, where the choices would seem to be between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. In the long term — or perhaps not so long term — we really are going to run out of Other Peoples’ Money. The whole house of cards comes crashing down at that point and we’ll likely have the chance to salvage some bits here and there and try to start over, perhaps with a scheme such as you propose as we could certainly do worse. My problem is, no matter how wide awake we might be, I see no way to reform the system fast enough to stop the crash of that house of cards and that’s going to be very painful for a lot of people.
I should probably have tried to express myself in more detail, but at 10pm the best I could muster was “we are so fucked”, which sums up the situation pretty well IMNSHO….
I’m not certain of the revamping requirements Swen, since naively I can suppose that groups of people working in concert and ad hoc can rouse themselves to organize to nominate individuals by proclamation. It seems on it’s face very much akin to the operation of the Tea Parties, with perhaps the proviso that even more energy will be required. I’ve no idea what the relevant thresholds would be however. Trial and error alone may be sufficient to determine the thing.