[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
When Tea Party darling Herman Cain announced his candidacy for president in May, he decided to cite words from the U.S. Constitution to underline his key points. Unfortunately for Cain, he got his documents wrong. The passage he chose was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Cain is not alone. There seems to be an epidemic of Tea Party Republicans botching historical accounts of the founding of the United States. Since Independence Day celebrates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and given the recent Tea Party problems with history, I thought it would be fitting to look a little closer at Cain's gaffe, as it has both symbolic and substantive importance regarding modern American politics.
Symbolically, Cain's problem with historical accuracy represents a major characteristic of the modern Tea Party-dominated Republican Party. Whether it is Sarah Palin's butchering of Paul Revere's role in the American Revolution, or Michele Bachmann's truly revisionist mangling of the facts to claim the founding fathers tried to abolish slavery (not to mention her belief that John Quincy Adams was a founding father, even though he was born in 1767), the Tea Party has shown a disdain for knowledge, facts and learning. History is not something set in stone, but rather something to be twisted and manipulated to support the immutable, ideological beliefs of the movement.
So if Palin or Bachmann plainly get American history wrong, the response isn't to admit it (after all, the statements are not debatable; Revere was not riding to warn the British, and slavery was enshrined as legitimate in the Constitution, notably through the three-fifths compromise). No, instead, their supporters tried to change history to match the statements of their leaders, which in 21st century practice means Palin supporters editing the Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere to reflect her mistakes, and Bachmann's followers doing the same for the page on John Quincy Adams.
The ignorance of Cain, Palin and Bachmann holds importance beyond a "gotcha" moment to demonstrate that these three individuals aren't up to the task of being president (similar to Mitt Romney's gaffe of telling an unemployed attendee at one of his events that he, too, was unemployed). More importantly, the lack of respect (or even caring about) facts, both by the candidates and their supporters, is indicative of the larger GOP approach to political positions. For example, Republicans support lower taxes for millionaires because that is what their core constituency and base ideology calls for, but they justify the position through unsustainable assertions that such tax cuts somehow create jobs, even though we know they don't (also here and here). Or, Republicans reject the existence of climate change to keep costs as low as possible for corporations regardless of the consequences, but justify their position by denying the existence of climate change, even though the overwhelming majority of scientists say it is real.
There are myriad issues for which Republicans rely on patently false assertions to back policy positions that may be otherwise unpalatable to the American public ("We're creating jobs" plays better than "Rich people shouldn't have to pay a lot in taxes"), but nowhere is this lack of respect for facts and history more prevalent than in the party's attacks on Barack Obama. Rather than oppose his policies on the merits, Republicans have engaged in a two-prong strategy of personal attacks meant to score political victories: First, they opposed every proposal made by the president, even if Obama called for the adoption of a policy once embraced by Republicans (i.e. becoming the Party of No, although I have argued they have evolved into the Party of F You).
Second, the right, including politicians and the right-wing, Fox News/Limbaugh propaganda echo chamber, has engaged in a coordinated assault to paint the president as being out of the American mainstream, regardless of the facts. They want you to think he is dangerous and un-American, that he was born in Kenya, and that his policy proposals are radical, and that he has no desire to keep Americans safe from terrorists with whom he actually sympathizes.
(Never mind that he has governed as a centrist and consistent with his campaign promises, which resulted in a hefty victory. For example, the stimulus package was smaller than many economists supported and included a ton of tax cuts; he didn't push for a single-payer system or even a public option as part of health care reform, instead getting behind a bill that pushed tens of millions of new customers into the hands of private insurance companies; and he stepped up the pursuit of Qaeda and Taliban targets, including drone attacks, taking out more terrorists than his predecessor, including Osama bin Laden.)
In right-wing rhetoric, the president is a threat to the American way of life, a socialist who wants to change traditional American values, even though there is no actual evidence to support these claims.
Why do these attacks matter? Well, that question segues nicely into the substantive problem with Cain's Constitution/Declaration gaffe, since the Tea Party regularly invokes an Obama attack on liberties, drawing on the Declaration of Independence (even if Cain thought he was citing the Constitution, not an insignificant error since the Constitution is the law of the land, providing a framework for our entire political system, while the Declaration is mainly historical in nature).
In his speech, Cain said:
"You know, those ideals that we live by, we believe in, your parents believe in, they instilled in you. When you get to the part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, don’t stop right there, keep reading. Cause that’s when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We’ve got some altering and some abolishing to do."
This kind of language should sound familiar, since it is the bread and butter of Tea Party ideology. And Cain is right about what the Declaration says (well, he got the wrong document, but he got the right sequence of passages). The second paragraph of the Declaration begins:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And then the paragraph goes on to say:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Warms the cockles of the Tea Party heart, right? Well, with a little more perspective and examination, not so much. First of all, I'm sure it's no coincidence Cain stopped where he did, since the next line of the Declaration is:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
So yes, the Declaration supports "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" the government when it becomes "destructive" to "unalienable Rights." But not for "light and transient causes." What did the founding fathers think were big enough threats to warrant revolution? The answer is right in the Declaration, a laundry list of grievances that make up the bulk of the document. It is a litany of charges that the King of England had impinged on American liberties by, among other things, engaging in the hindering and dissolution of of legislative bodies, ignoring laws, preventing the adoption of laws (including, much to the Tea Party's disdain, I'm sure, the "Naturalization of Foreigners"), interfering with the judiciary, quartering English soldiers, interfering with trade, and imposing taxes without consent.
In short, the founding fathers bristled at being ruled by a dictatorial monarch. It is easy to see how in the over-hyped, rabid and, most importantly, false and historically inaccurate rhetoric of the Tea Party, such a connection would be apparent, from the tyranny of a King to a president looking to institute a socialist/Nazi/Islamist dictatorship in the United States.
Only, much like Bachmann's and Palin's lack of knowledge of our history, Cain (and it's not like he is the only Republican who talks about Obama's assault on our liberties) completely misunderstands and misapplies the content and context of the Declaration's call for revolution. Republicans can't seem to understand that if the president disagrees with them on how to address the country's roster of problems, it doesn't make him a tyrant. It's doubtful the founding father would look kindly on anyone trying to argue that the Obama presidency was comparable to the reign of King George III.
The language of the Declaration of Independence doesn't provide the support the Tea Party thinks it does.
(As an aside, the core charges of the Tea Party against Obama are all false: They complain about taxes, but Americans are experiencing their lowest tax burden since 1958, with taxes lower than they were under Reagan. They charge Obama with wanting to take away their guns, but the president hasn't signed a single piece of gun control legislation, nor did he veto bills with pro-gun provisions attached. I could go on and on.)
Cain (and Bachmann and Palin) getting history wrong isn't just about a funny media story. Rather, the Tea Party's ambivalence about facts and history is a necessary component of the GOP political strategy, as the party seeks to continue its drive since the 2010 elections to return the country to the 1920s (attacking social safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security, busting unions, cutting education, catering to corporate special interests and prioritizing eliminating abortion, all while further increasing the historically massive divide between the very wealthiest Americans and the rest of us). As Think Progress tweeted last week: "REMINDER: Current deficit + economy product of crisis created by deregulation + huge tax cuts. Solution isn't deregulation + huge tax cuts." (Just look at Tim Pawlenty's tax cut proposal, for example.)
Republicans, to win in 2012, are relying on Americans to forget history, not remember it.
So on this Independence Day, which commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, let's take the opportunity to read the document and better understand what it did (and did not) say, and, more importantly, against what the founding fathers were actually rebelling.
And let's try and stick to facts and accurate history when debating the issues. I know cognitive dissonance can be troubling for an ideologue, but here is a tip: If you find yourself literally trying to rewrite history, you're probably on the wrong side of a debate.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Weiner's Hubris Means There Is One Fewer Democrat to Fight Bad GOP Policies
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
I was speaking to a friend of mine who lives in Anthony Weiner's district, and we both had the same reaction to the congressman's Twitter scandal. Oddly, though, the element of Weinergate we both zeroed in on has been largely unrepresented in the news media's coverage.
Specifically, we were upset that one of the few Democrats in Congress with the nerve to consistently speak out against bad Republican proposals--and, more importantly, for traditional Democratic ones--had done something so colossally foolish, reckless and arrogant that he had undercut his position as a champion for good policy. The importance of the role that Weiner played in the political battles of the last several years seems to have been lost in a sea of stories on the more prurient and strategic aspects of the brouhaha.
To me, in the wake of Weiner's foolishness, the big question is: How will the Democrats proceed without one of their most steadfast and articulate spokesmen in Washington?
There is so much at stake in the next 17 months leading to the 2012 elections. The Tea Party-dominated, increasingly ideological Republican party is in the middle of a crusade to turn the clock back to the 1920s, a time when corporations could operate unfettered by protections for individuals, workers had few rights, there was no social safety net, and the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the citizenry was huge (as it has become again after the Bush years).
Since the Republicans won the House and many governors' mansions and state legislatures across the country in 2010, they have moved in concert to attack a woman's right to choose, unions and the social safety net, using fears about deficits to drive spending cuts, all while refusing to consider any revenue-related solutions, including scaling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (even as the Bush tax cuts exploded the deficit and did nothing to help the economy, as Republicans claim).
Even though Democrats control the Senate and the White House, they have often been reluctant to fight back. They backed down when Republicans threatened to shut down the government if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy weren't extended, and they've allowed the Republicans to set the agenda on spending, deficits and other issues, especially since January.
But not all Democrats capitulated to GOP demands, and Anthony Weiner stood out front of that small group. Weiner was a staunch advocate for traditional Democratic principals. He was an articulate and passionate proponent of health care reform, championing his proposal of Medicare for all without fear. He also was out front in opposing the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He displayed strength and steadfastness in the face of Republican pressure.
Who will stand up for Democratic idals now?
I'm not writing to defend Weiner's behavior. My advice to his wife would be to hire a good divorce attorney. But his private failings have nothing to do with his service as a member of Congress. He didn't break any laws, and he probably didn't even violate any House rules. It's been hard to watch Republicans call for his resignation, even though the GOP said nothing when David Vitter essentially admitted to using the services of a Washington madam.
But, of course, by engaging in such reckless, irresponsible and stupid behavior, Weiner has made it impossible (whether he resigns or not) to continue his influential and important advocacy for Democratic policies and opposition to damaging Republican proposals. And that's the true loss, on a national basis, to come from Weiner's idiocy.
The rush of major Democratic House figures like Nancy Pelosi to call for Weiner's resignation was disappointing but not surprising. Weiner often pushed them to show more backbone in battling Republicans and pushing for Democratic solutions to problems. Democratic leaders in Congress, from health care to stimulus to financial regulation to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, acted timidly (and seemingly out of fear), quick to capitulate to Republican demands. At the same time, Weiner was bold and steadfast. He exposed the weakness of leadership, and I'm sure they were none too happy about it. And I'm sure that history played a roll in the quick calls for Weiner to step down.
But if Democratic leaders get their wish (and, to a large extent, even if they do not), Weiner won't be there anymore to stand up to the Republicans as they try and remake the country, Tea Party style. That is, to me, the single most important consequence of the Weiner scandal.
The irony is that it's not really risky to stand up to the extreme right-wing policies Republicans have advanced since taking over the House and governors' mansions and state legislatures across the country. On a state level, when, after campaigning on jobs, Republican governors and legislators instead started paying back their corporate and religious-conservative benefactors with a virtual conservative wish list of policies (going after abortion and unions, mainly), the result has been massive buyer's remorse. The governors in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin saw plunging approval ratings, and in Wisconsin, six Republican senators already face recall elections (the efforts to recall three Democratic senators have not been certified by the state elections board due to apparent fraud).
On the federal level, when Paul Ryan proposed satisfying the decades-long conservative dream of ending Medicare, and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it, voter backlash was strong and instantaneous, leading to a Democrat winning a special election for a House seat in a heavily Republican district in Western New York.
(And yes, I know Ryan's plan retains a program called Medicare, but his voucher-based approach would effectively kill what Medicare has been since its formation, leaving it Medicare in name only. Paul Krugman did a fantastic job laying out how Ryan's new Medicare would result in completely different--and inferior--medical coverage for seniors.)
So standing up for mainstream Democratic ideals (individuals over corporations and the wealthiest two percent) and opposing the far-right initiatives Republicans are pushing (like busting unions and killing Medicare, as well as prioritizing taking away a woman's right to choose over job creation) has turned out to be good politics (not just good for the country).
This is something Anthony Weiner not only understood, but reveled in. He didn't just speak out for Democratic solutions to problems (and against Republican proposals that were bad for the country), he did so confidently, strongly and happily.
Now, thanks to his Twitter activities, we've lost that voice. And sadly, there are few Democrats in Washington who have demonstrated Weiner's strength and resolve. That is the tragedy of the Weiner scandal, that it will be that much easier now for the Republicans to roll forward with a truly odious agenda, one that will be damaging for the country.
That is the story I take away from Weiner's downfall. It's less fun than the prurient stuff the news media latched onto, but I think the tabloid fodder should stay on the late night talk shows where it belongs.
I was speaking to a friend of mine who lives in Anthony Weiner's district, and we both had the same reaction to the congressman's Twitter scandal. Oddly, though, the element of Weinergate we both zeroed in on has been largely unrepresented in the news media's coverage.
Specifically, we were upset that one of the few Democrats in Congress with the nerve to consistently speak out against bad Republican proposals--and, more importantly, for traditional Democratic ones--had done something so colossally foolish, reckless and arrogant that he had undercut his position as a champion for good policy. The importance of the role that Weiner played in the political battles of the last several years seems to have been lost in a sea of stories on the more prurient and strategic aspects of the brouhaha.
To me, in the wake of Weiner's foolishness, the big question is: How will the Democrats proceed without one of their most steadfast and articulate spokesmen in Washington?
There is so much at stake in the next 17 months leading to the 2012 elections. The Tea Party-dominated, increasingly ideological Republican party is in the middle of a crusade to turn the clock back to the 1920s, a time when corporations could operate unfettered by protections for individuals, workers had few rights, there was no social safety net, and the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the citizenry was huge (as it has become again after the Bush years).
Since the Republicans won the House and many governors' mansions and state legislatures across the country in 2010, they have moved in concert to attack a woman's right to choose, unions and the social safety net, using fears about deficits to drive spending cuts, all while refusing to consider any revenue-related solutions, including scaling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (even as the Bush tax cuts exploded the deficit and did nothing to help the economy, as Republicans claim).
Even though Democrats control the Senate and the White House, they have often been reluctant to fight back. They backed down when Republicans threatened to shut down the government if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy weren't extended, and they've allowed the Republicans to set the agenda on spending, deficits and other issues, especially since January.
But not all Democrats capitulated to GOP demands, and Anthony Weiner stood out front of that small group. Weiner was a staunch advocate for traditional Democratic principals. He was an articulate and passionate proponent of health care reform, championing his proposal of Medicare for all without fear. He also was out front in opposing the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He displayed strength and steadfastness in the face of Republican pressure.
Who will stand up for Democratic idals now?
I'm not writing to defend Weiner's behavior. My advice to his wife would be to hire a good divorce attorney. But his private failings have nothing to do with his service as a member of Congress. He didn't break any laws, and he probably didn't even violate any House rules. It's been hard to watch Republicans call for his resignation, even though the GOP said nothing when David Vitter essentially admitted to using the services of a Washington madam.
But, of course, by engaging in such reckless, irresponsible and stupid behavior, Weiner has made it impossible (whether he resigns or not) to continue his influential and important advocacy for Democratic policies and opposition to damaging Republican proposals. And that's the true loss, on a national basis, to come from Weiner's idiocy.
The rush of major Democratic House figures like Nancy Pelosi to call for Weiner's resignation was disappointing but not surprising. Weiner often pushed them to show more backbone in battling Republicans and pushing for Democratic solutions to problems. Democratic leaders in Congress, from health care to stimulus to financial regulation to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, acted timidly (and seemingly out of fear), quick to capitulate to Republican demands. At the same time, Weiner was bold and steadfast. He exposed the weakness of leadership, and I'm sure they were none too happy about it. And I'm sure that history played a roll in the quick calls for Weiner to step down.
But if Democratic leaders get their wish (and, to a large extent, even if they do not), Weiner won't be there anymore to stand up to the Republicans as they try and remake the country, Tea Party style. That is, to me, the single most important consequence of the Weiner scandal.
The irony is that it's not really risky to stand up to the extreme right-wing policies Republicans have advanced since taking over the House and governors' mansions and state legislatures across the country. On a state level, when, after campaigning on jobs, Republican governors and legislators instead started paying back their corporate and religious-conservative benefactors with a virtual conservative wish list of policies (going after abortion and unions, mainly), the result has been massive buyer's remorse. The governors in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin saw plunging approval ratings, and in Wisconsin, six Republican senators already face recall elections (the efforts to recall three Democratic senators have not been certified by the state elections board due to apparent fraud).
On the federal level, when Paul Ryan proposed satisfying the decades-long conservative dream of ending Medicare, and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it, voter backlash was strong and instantaneous, leading to a Democrat winning a special election for a House seat in a heavily Republican district in Western New York.
(And yes, I know Ryan's plan retains a program called Medicare, but his voucher-based approach would effectively kill what Medicare has been since its formation, leaving it Medicare in name only. Paul Krugman did a fantastic job laying out how Ryan's new Medicare would result in completely different--and inferior--medical coverage for seniors.)
So standing up for mainstream Democratic ideals (individuals over corporations and the wealthiest two percent) and opposing the far-right initiatives Republicans are pushing (like busting unions and killing Medicare, as well as prioritizing taking away a woman's right to choose over job creation) has turned out to be good politics (not just good for the country).
This is something Anthony Weiner not only understood, but reveled in. He didn't just speak out for Democratic solutions to problems (and against Republican proposals that were bad for the country), he did so confidently, strongly and happily.
Now, thanks to his Twitter activities, we've lost that voice. And sadly, there are few Democrats in Washington who have demonstrated Weiner's strength and resolve. That is the tragedy of the Weiner scandal, that it will be that much easier now for the Republicans to roll forward with a truly odious agenda, one that will be damaging for the country.
That is the story I take away from Weiner's downfall. It's less fun than the prurient stuff the news media latched onto, but I think the tabloid fodder should stay on the late night talk shows where it belongs.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The GOP Has Gone from the Party of No to the Party of F You
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels announced he would not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012 (a week after Mike Huckabee also chose not to run), he said it was because of the "interests and wishes" of his family.
And while I have no reason to doubt Daniels's claim, I can't help think that there may also be another factor in play. Daniels has carefully built his reputation as a reasonable governor, one who puts practical solutions in front of ideological battles. (Whether he actually is the above-the-fray leader he portrays himself to be is a different story, of course.) But, as Jacob Weisberg astutely pointed out in Slate on Friday, to be a national Republican figure today, you have to embrace a litany of lies, distortions and flat-out factually incorrect positions. The GOP lives now, he says, in "a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems ... can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact ... expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot."
And living in a self-produced and Fox News/Rush Limbaugh-protected bubble of false reality has practical consequences. For the first two years of President Obama's administration, the Republicans were the Party of No, obstructing every one of the president's initiatives to address the pile of problems left behind by George W. Bush, all for political gain. But after winning control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections (as well as state governor's mansions and legislatures across the country), the Party of No morphed into something else, fully embracing a far-right, Tea Party-driven, wealth-and-business-obsessed, social and fiscal conservatism that sits to the right of even Ronald Reagan.
The GOP is now the Party of F You. (Fitting, given last year's infectious hit of the same name by Cee-Lo Green.) And that might be too much for Daniels to embrace.
After all, the Republicans campaigned in 2010 on jobs, deficits and health care, but it was all an act, a strategy to get elected. Once in office, the GOP has embraced a very different agenda, one that could easily be called the F You Agenda. Simply put, if you are wealthy or a large corporation, the Republicans have nothing but hugs and kisses for you. But for the rest of us? The GOP only offers a stern "F you."
- Are you out of a job because of the financial collapse-induced recession that spiked the country's unemployment rate in 2008? The Republicans say "F you." Unless you believe the fairy tale that tax cuts for the rich create jobs (a lunatic fringe position not accepted by virtually any respected economists), the GOP has done nothing to help address unemployment. They've fought federal programs to boost job growth (including stimulus proposals, even lying about the effects of the 2009 stimulus legislation). And if not addressing the problem wasn't bad enough, Republicans have blocked efforts to extend unemployment insurance to those out of work, at both the state and federal level.
- Are you worried about another financial collapse due to a lack of regulation of the industry? The Republicans say "F you." The 2008 recession, the effects of which are still with us today, was precipitated by a near collapse of the financial system, which was brought about by major financial institutions unscrupulously taking huge risks on junk securities, all while making billions in the process. This conduct was made possible because of 30 years (dating back to Ronald Reagan) of repealing regulations that had prevented just such abuses for nearly 50 years, from after the crash of 1929 until the Regan administration. So you would think it would be common sense that regulation would be needed to ensure that the financial industry can't do it all over again. But you would be wrong. The Republicans fought the modest financial regulation bill, Dodd-Frank, that was finally enacted in 2010, and have continued to fight to weaken it or delay its implementation ever since.
- Are you worried about cutting the federal budget deficit? The Republicans say "F you." The GOP doesn't care about deficits, despite its rhetoric, because if it did, it wouldn't adopt the position that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be rolled back, adding billions to the deficit in the years ahead. (And it's not like we're being over-taxed as citizens right now. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958.) No, the Republican agenda is to cut taxes at all costs for corporations and the wealthy, and then to use the deficits that are created to justify draconian cuts in government spending. The end game is undoing the safety net created by the New Deal and the Great Society, including government programs like Medicare and Social Security that Americans have come to rely on. Paul Ryan's proposed budget (based on ludicrously optimistic projections provided by the right-wing Heritage Foundation), which effectively destroys Medicare by replacing government-paid-for health care for seniors with vouchers that won't begin to cover their insurance costs (assuming they can get insurance at all), is the realization of 80 years of conservative dreams of returning the country back to the 1920s. Which leads to ...
- Are you someone who hopes to have medical care when you're elderly? The GOP says "F you." Acceptance of Ryan's proposed budget, with its destruction of Medicare, has become unassailable dogma in the Republican party ( just ask Newt Gingrich). As I described above, Ryan's plan would leave many seniors without health care (including in his home state of Wisconsin). But hey, that's a small price to pay for an ideological victory, right?
- Do you believe a woman should have the right to control her own body if she gets pregnant? The Republicans say "F you." Since taking office, both in the House and in the states, eliminating a woman's right to have an abortion has been at the top of the GOP agenda. In fact, the very first bill introduced in the GOP-controlled House this session, HR 1, was laden with anti-abortion provisions.
- If you are a woman who has been raped in a way House Republicans don't think is rape, they say "F you" to you. GOP legislation introduced in the House sought to redefine rape, limiting the types of acts that constitute rape.
- In fact, if you are a woman, period, Republicans say "F you" to you. Even beyond abortion, GOP proposals have been so detrimental to women, especially women's health services, that myriad organizations and writers have used the term "the Republican war on women."
- Do you want the government to responsibly manage the country's finances and prioritize the financial health of the nation over strict ideological games and tests? The Republicans say "F you." Despite the fact that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling "threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans," and an independent report outlined the potential disastrous consequences to the economy, the Republicans are playing games. They're using the need to raise the limit as a bargaining chip, trying to extract draconian budget cuts in return, all while disingenuously downplaying the impact of failing to raise the ceiling (also this), even as John Boehner traveled to New York to assure financial executives that the limit would be raised.
Keep in mind, it is truly the ideologically driven radical right behind the debt ceiling obstruction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an Obama-despising conservative institution, as well as financial executives like the managing director of J.P. Morgan, want the debt ceiling raised.
- Are high gas and oil prices having a real impact on your family's budget? The Republicans say "F you." Republicans in the Senate voted to protect subsidies for big oil companies, who have made billions in windfall profits thanks to high prices, choosing their corporate benefactors over the American people (not to mention blowing an opportunity to cut into the deficit and perpetuating a dependence on oil that has grave national security, economic and environmental implications for the United States).
I could go on (global warming denying, birther-coddling, union-busting, etc.), but the Republicans repeatedly say "F you" to everyone in this country except for the elite wealthy and big corporations. The party has moved so far to the right, its core policies are far out of the American mainstream. No wonder so many Republicans are dropping out of the presidential race, including Daniels, who would have to surrender his carefully developed persona as a reasonable, pragmatic leader if he wanted to have even a prayer of getting through the far-right-dominated GOP primary process.
I know Daniels is worried about the scrutiny on his past marital problems, but I can't help wonder if, at least in part, he just didn't want to be the standard bearer for the Party of F You.
When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels announced he would not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012 (a week after Mike Huckabee also chose not to run), he said it was because of the "interests and wishes" of his family.
And while I have no reason to doubt Daniels's claim, I can't help think that there may also be another factor in play. Daniels has carefully built his reputation as a reasonable governor, one who puts practical solutions in front of ideological battles. (Whether he actually is the above-the-fray leader he portrays himself to be is a different story, of course.) But, as Jacob Weisberg astutely pointed out in Slate on Friday, to be a national Republican figure today, you have to embrace a litany of lies, distortions and flat-out factually incorrect positions. The GOP lives now, he says, in "a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems ... can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact ... expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot."
And living in a self-produced and Fox News/Rush Limbaugh-protected bubble of false reality has practical consequences. For the first two years of President Obama's administration, the Republicans were the Party of No, obstructing every one of the president's initiatives to address the pile of problems left behind by George W. Bush, all for political gain. But after winning control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections (as well as state governor's mansions and legislatures across the country), the Party of No morphed into something else, fully embracing a far-right, Tea Party-driven, wealth-and-business-obsessed, social and fiscal conservatism that sits to the right of even Ronald Reagan.
The GOP is now the Party of F You. (Fitting, given last year's infectious hit of the same name by Cee-Lo Green.) And that might be too much for Daniels to embrace.
After all, the Republicans campaigned in 2010 on jobs, deficits and health care, but it was all an act, a strategy to get elected. Once in office, the GOP has embraced a very different agenda, one that could easily be called the F You Agenda. Simply put, if you are wealthy or a large corporation, the Republicans have nothing but hugs and kisses for you. But for the rest of us? The GOP only offers a stern "F you."
- Are you out of a job because of the financial collapse-induced recession that spiked the country's unemployment rate in 2008? The Republicans say "F you." Unless you believe the fairy tale that tax cuts for the rich create jobs (a lunatic fringe position not accepted by virtually any respected economists), the GOP has done nothing to help address unemployment. They've fought federal programs to boost job growth (including stimulus proposals, even lying about the effects of the 2009 stimulus legislation). And if not addressing the problem wasn't bad enough, Republicans have blocked efforts to extend unemployment insurance to those out of work, at both the state and federal level.
- Are you worried about another financial collapse due to a lack of regulation of the industry? The Republicans say "F you." The 2008 recession, the effects of which are still with us today, was precipitated by a near collapse of the financial system, which was brought about by major financial institutions unscrupulously taking huge risks on junk securities, all while making billions in the process. This conduct was made possible because of 30 years (dating back to Ronald Reagan) of repealing regulations that had prevented just such abuses for nearly 50 years, from after the crash of 1929 until the Regan administration. So you would think it would be common sense that regulation would be needed to ensure that the financial industry can't do it all over again. But you would be wrong. The Republicans fought the modest financial regulation bill, Dodd-Frank, that was finally enacted in 2010, and have continued to fight to weaken it or delay its implementation ever since.
- Are you worried about cutting the federal budget deficit? The Republicans say "F you." The GOP doesn't care about deficits, despite its rhetoric, because if it did, it wouldn't adopt the position that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cannot be rolled back, adding billions to the deficit in the years ahead. (And it's not like we're being over-taxed as citizens right now. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958.) No, the Republican agenda is to cut taxes at all costs for corporations and the wealthy, and then to use the deficits that are created to justify draconian cuts in government spending. The end game is undoing the safety net created by the New Deal and the Great Society, including government programs like Medicare and Social Security that Americans have come to rely on. Paul Ryan's proposed budget (based on ludicrously optimistic projections provided by the right-wing Heritage Foundation), which effectively destroys Medicare by replacing government-paid-for health care for seniors with vouchers that won't begin to cover their insurance costs (assuming they can get insurance at all), is the realization of 80 years of conservative dreams of returning the country back to the 1920s. Which leads to ...
- Are you someone who hopes to have medical care when you're elderly? The GOP says "F you." Acceptance of Ryan's proposed budget, with its destruction of Medicare, has become unassailable dogma in the Republican party ( just ask Newt Gingrich). As I described above, Ryan's plan would leave many seniors without health care (including in his home state of Wisconsin). But hey, that's a small price to pay for an ideological victory, right?
- Do you believe a woman should have the right to control her own body if she gets pregnant? The Republicans say "F you." Since taking office, both in the House and in the states, eliminating a woman's right to have an abortion has been at the top of the GOP agenda. In fact, the very first bill introduced in the GOP-controlled House this session, HR 1, was laden with anti-abortion provisions.
- If you are a woman who has been raped in a way House Republicans don't think is rape, they say "F you" to you. GOP legislation introduced in the House sought to redefine rape, limiting the types of acts that constitute rape.
- In fact, if you are a woman, period, Republicans say "F you" to you. Even beyond abortion, GOP proposals have been so detrimental to women, especially women's health services, that myriad organizations and writers have used the term "the Republican war on women."
- Do you want the government to responsibly manage the country's finances and prioritize the financial health of the nation over strict ideological games and tests? The Republicans say "F you." Despite the fact that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling "threatens the health of our entire global economy and the jobs of millions of Americans," and an independent report outlined the potential disastrous consequences to the economy, the Republicans are playing games. They're using the need to raise the limit as a bargaining chip, trying to extract draconian budget cuts in return, all while disingenuously downplaying the impact of failing to raise the ceiling (also this), even as John Boehner traveled to New York to assure financial executives that the limit would be raised.
Keep in mind, it is truly the ideologically driven radical right behind the debt ceiling obstruction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an Obama-despising conservative institution, as well as financial executives like the managing director of J.P. Morgan, want the debt ceiling raised.
- Are high gas and oil prices having a real impact on your family's budget? The Republicans say "F you." Republicans in the Senate voted to protect subsidies for big oil companies, who have made billions in windfall profits thanks to high prices, choosing their corporate benefactors over the American people (not to mention blowing an opportunity to cut into the deficit and perpetuating a dependence on oil that has grave national security, economic and environmental implications for the United States).
I could go on (global warming denying, birther-coddling, union-busting, etc.), but the Republicans repeatedly say "F you" to everyone in this country except for the elite wealthy and big corporations. The party has moved so far to the right, its core policies are far out of the American mainstream. No wonder so many Republicans are dropping out of the presidential race, including Daniels, who would have to surrender his carefully developed persona as a reasonable, pragmatic leader if he wanted to have even a prayer of getting through the far-right-dominated GOP primary process.
I know Daniels is worried about the scrutiny on his past marital problems, but I can't help wonder if, at least in part, he just didn't want to be the standard bearer for the Party of F You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
