House of Eratosthenes

Was listening to Tom Sullivan in the car yesterday, and I’m not sure what brought this up. Had to be the Chris Christie bridge thing. Was anybody talking about anything else, anywhere, yesterday? But anyway, a caller called in and compared the Republicans today to the way they were back in Reagan’s time, coming out of it with an unfavorable view of the current ones. The word she used, that caught the host’s attention, applied more to the modern image than to the modern substance, was “sleazy.”

There’s a lesson here for everybody, Republican or otherwise. Today’s Republicans have an image problem; they project an image of sleaze, because they project an image of nothing else. Think about it: Someone may say to you “I’m going to vote for [insert name here] (who happens to be a Republican” and it may be clear from that what they want to do, what their vision is, what their hopes and fears may be. But what if they say, “I’m going to vote solid Republican,” what would that tell you today? You wouldn’t know where to begin. Not that you can’t argue about it. But the argument would be short; one side would slander the Republicans, the other side might try to defend them, but not for too long and not too vigorously. And it wouldn’t be that interesting of an argument. Neither wide would have any real confidence in whether they captured the true meaning of the speaker’s intention when he said he would vote Republican.

And that’s, if it ever happened.

What’s interesting about this is that the Tea Party does not have a similar problem. Everyone’s got a good solid idea of Tea Party priorities. That is not to say everyone is correct about this. The Tea Party is at the center of a determined and motivated attempt at political slander; it is an energized and driven effort, because it is an effort that is needed. They are a threat.

As Michelle Malkin has been pointing out for years, and continues to point out now, you just can’t count on a Republican to be much of anything anymore. Not even a non-democrat.

One clue we have on what might be going on, is the number of times I hear the name “Barack Obama” as I take phone calls from conservative fund-raising groups. Well, that Barack Obama person has fund-raising groups working for Him, who also contact me often. They write to me in the e-mail and say: Barack Obama just made such-and-such happen. Kick in five dollars, three dollars, whatever you can afford, and we’ll make some more stuff happen. The conservative groups say: Barack Obama just made such-and-such happen. Donate today, or else we won’t be able to stop His agenda…and He’ll make more stuff happen. See the difference?

I’ll state it more plainly: Evidently, from my experiences if from nobody else’s, everyone who’s been sent to Washington to stop Barack Obama, has made a livelihood out of failing to do so.

It’s a bit odd that the guy whose approval rating looks like this…

…enjoys such “support” from both sides of the aisle. President Obama certainly has had a unifying effect on the country. People of all sorts of different ideological persuasions agree He’s doing an awful job and His policies are wretched. They also agree that we shouldn’t do anything to actually stop Him, or even slow Him down…unless assurances can be provided that whatever we’re doing to stop Him, will have little to no actual effect.

There’s something cultural happening here. Something huge, beneath the surface, and something new. It seems our society lately is losing the ability to carry out a vision; to evaluate results. How did Clint Eastwood put it: “When somebody does not do the job, we got to let him go[.]” That sentiment did not prevail in the last election. And yet Obama’s supporters were not saying, in large measure, “He is doing the job.” Their message was more like: He’s trying really, really, super hard, and it’s taking a long time because things are so, so, so very messed up. That is what carried the day.

Americans are becoming less and less results-oriented. We’re becoming more & more like the dog chasing the car; more interested in the chase than in its possible conclusion. In reality, there’s no reason for Obama to still be messing around with improving the economy five years into His regime, anymore than there was any reason for FDR to be similarly struggling eight years into his. That’s all just a lot of pablum to be fed to the masses. And the Republicans, sorry to say, have bought into this wholesale. Worse than that, they’re selling it retail.

As is the case with anything else, things are only going to get better after we form a vision for actually solving the problem, and start carrying it out.

Re voting the man vs. voting the party. There is a serious information problem here. The fact is the only thing you actually know about any candidate is party affiliation. Everything is either a lie told by the candidate’s people or a lie told by his opponent’s people. So, from an information viewpoint, voting the party is the only rational choice.

Malkin does have a good point: membership in the Republican Party is not an indicator of conservatism. However, she believes the Republican Party is or should be or was a conservative party. It is currently a center/left party; no one in it opposes the New Deal, the Great Society, the welfare state, social security, medicare, medicaid, affirmative action or environmental activism. They don’t even support the incandescent light bulb.

Historically, the Republican Party has always had a progressive tendency or even been a progressive party. It was founded as a progressive party. What do you think Lincoln and the Abolitionists were? Or Theodore Roosevelt, or Herbert Hoover, or Dwight Eisenhower, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either Bush? The only conservatives in the Party for the last hundred or so years were Taft, Coolidge (maybe), and Reagan. Goldwater was a libertarian. Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal.

The friction between the Party’s leadership and some of its supporters lies in the fact that the leadership of this center/left party is happy to support the progressive legislation of the last 80 years while some of its erstwhile supporters (mainly the Tea Party) want a conservative party. They would vote Democrat except the Democrat Party is a full-blown socialist/communist/criminal party and so anathema. It would be interesting to know how many of the Tea Party people would give up the progressive programs of the last 80 years. I’ll be it’s close to none.
- Bob Sykes | 01/10/2014 @ 06:07
If we accept the liberal’s definition of conservatism, we would accept “opposing progress” as our definition or something very close to that. The true conservative, hearing of some proposed change, slams his hands against his ears and starts yelling “can’t hear you la la la” before learning a single thing about it. I’m sure that’s a fun, feel-good fantasy to a lefty, which is the same as saying in the lefty-universe it really is true. But I would not successfully fulfill this definition of “conservative” myself. Actually, among the people I personally know or about whom I’ve read, who do fulfill this definition, most of them are lefties — can’t build that bridge or that dam, such-and-such a species of mollusk uses those waters as a breeding ground, etc.

Conservatism, to me, means having the wisdom to say: I don’t think this is working out. It means evaluating results, and heading wherever the best available evidence leads you. In this day & age, it’s an easy thing to test because it means having the sense of direction and the recall-capability to figure out you’re being sent on a merry-go-round, and we have so many politicians ready & even eager to send us on circular trajectories. It means thinking like a grown-up.

- mkfreeberg | 01/10/2014 @ 06:47
I think we’re getting closer to the endpoint of Clinton-style politics. The personal is the political, as Hillary! so memorably put it. But if that’s true, then so’s the converse: the political is personal. Barack Obama is — as flabbergasting as we all find this — an aspirational figure for a whole lot of people. It comes out time and again in all those studies of the attitudes of college kids — they all think they’re very special, very smart, very good leaders, very well organized, have great ideas, etc., when in reality they’re barely pulling a two-point in Leisure Studies and the only thing they’ve ever successfully organized is a trip to the fridge after a few righteous bong rips. Barack Obama is the embodiment of this – the only thing he’s better at than praising himself is receiving the praise of others. He confirms narcissistic eterna-students’ self concept.

What would really help the GOP — and, by extension, the country — isn’t to get a candidate with more stated fealty to conservative ideas. It’s to get a candidate who has actually done something. Of the many, many things that drove me nuts about Mitt Romney, his refusal to talk about his accomplishments was among the worst. Can anybody, anywhere, tell me what “Bain Capital” actually is, other than Something Bad That All Good People Are Required To Hate? Had he talked to people like grownups –“yes, in the process of returning Company X to profitability, we had to lay some people off; wouldn’t your workplace be doing a lot better with certain people gone?” — he could’ve stood for something.

Sadly, he’s the last Republican candidate with meaningful private-sector experience in forever. I can’t think of a current Pub who isn’t a career pol. Which is to say, a Democrat — when government’s your livelihood, you start to get a lot friendlier towards it.
- Severian | 01/10/2014 @ 07:33
Can’t do mean things to a black guy who’s running something and fucking it up. Forbidden to point out fucking up if it looks black.
- vanderleun | 01/10/2014 @ 09:54
“It would be interesting to know how many of the Tea Party people would give up the progressive programs of the last 80 years. I’ll be it’s close to none.”

Oh brother. You either have never meet anyone nor know anyone in The Tea Party nor have the faintest idea what it’s all about.

Morgan,

Not saying you’re necessarily wrong, but I’m just a little confused. The Republican Party is considered “sleazy” because of…the fat Jersey guy??? He represents ALL of the party? What exactly or whom else are you referring to?

Especially considering the other folks with The One, Biden, Rahm Emanual, Axlerod, Pelosi and the biggest sleaze ball of the all – Reid. Not to mention some other lesser ones like Spitzer, Wiener, Alan Grayson…

Do the R’s have comparable sleaze next to those greasers?

Lastly, we’d all be better off as R’s to take a page from the D’s playbook, and as Reagan said – “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” It seems lately, as the Dem’s are losing we, for some sick twisted, fucked up reason, are increasingly attacking ourselves. Forget the Jersey guy, not talking about that lard ass. We seem to not understand – to never interfere when our enemy is destroying itself. No, we must put a freakin’ halt to that and fall on some goddamn imaginary sword. I’ll never for the life of me understand that shit. Count me out.
- tim | 01/10/2014 @ 10:47
No, we must put a freakin’ halt to that and fall on some goddamn imaginary sword. I’ll never for the life of me understand that shit.

Back in the 60s and 70s there was a bunch of psych-talk about “institutionalization.” Apparently long-term residence in the bug house or the hoosegow makes you an “institution man” — you can’t function without the rhythms and routines of incarceration. Think Brooks in Shawshank Redemption. Anyway, I wonder why they don’t apply that to politicians. I’m sure we all have that one liberal friend. We might fight ’em all day long about politics, but when they’re in trouble, the “liberal” part of “my liberal friend” drops out and you do what you can to help them. How much more pronounced must that tendency be when literally everybody in your world knows who’s having problems, and what you did or didn’t do to help? If I told my liberal buddy with the hefty medical bills to suck it, you voted for this shit, go get yourself a much worse plan for three times as much off the 404Care website, well, I’d be mean SOB and lose him as a friend, but most of the rest of my social world wouldn’t know or care. In Washington, these guys are each others’ entire social worlds.
- Severian | 01/10/2014 @ 11:47
Sev, that’s a fine explanation of the cock suckers in DC , but I wanted to know why we, the blogs, websites etc., why do we attack our own? Especially when the Libs are down and having a bitch of time?

Are R’s and Conservatives in general, just too freakin’ nice? Too committed to the rules of keeping everything above board. The moral high ground is nice but like fighting jihads, at the end of the day what good is it if we’re all dead?

Oh sure we can claim we’re righteous and true…as they win another election…or ban “assault weapons” in my state, NY, and ram some more socialism down our throats? I’m tired of that shit.

It’s linked to the DC R’s rolling over on such recent things like the debt ceiling, gov. closing. I’m no psychologist so I won’t even try to figure it out but until we do…we’re screwed.
- tim | 01/10/2014 @ 14:45
The Republican Party is considered “sleazy” because of…the fat Jersey guy??? He represents ALL of the party?

No, I think what Mr. Sullivan’s show was about that day was, you just can’t say “Republican” is equal to “small government” anymore. Back in 1981, you could, since they had just elected a guy to the White House and he’d given his inauguration speech about that, including the famous catch-phrase of (something like) if not one of us is sufficiently competent to manage his own affairs, then who among us could possibly be competent to manage everybody else’s? And stuff.

Rather sad how much time has rolled on by since anyone in a position of comparable prominence said something similar. These days it seems to be all about networking, leaving the Republicans poised to do exactly nothing except lose some more.
- mkfreeberg | 01/10/2014 @ 15:06
Bob Sykes: It would be interesting to know how many of the Tea Party people would give up the progressive programs of the last 80 years. I’ll be it’s close to none.

“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare!”

mkfreeberg: But what if they say, “I’m going to vote solid Republican,” what would that tell you today? You wouldn’t know where to begin.

We can make some reasonable judgments. In a two-party system, one will often vote for the team, even if a candidate has contrary views on particular issues. For instance, if you tend to small government or are pro-life, you would probably vote for Romney, despite his vacillation on these issues.

mkfreeberg: As Michelle Malkin has been pointing out for years, and continues to point out now, you just can’t count on a Republican to be much of anything anymore. Not even a non-democrat.

That’s always a problem in a two-party system. Candidates move to the center as soon as they secure the nomination. In a multiparty system, you can vote for parties that most closely resemble your views, then bargain to the center after being elected. In a two-party system, coalition first, election later. In a multiparty system, election first, coalition later.

mkfreeberg: Evidently, from my experiences if from nobody else’s, everyone who’s been sent to Washington to stop Barack Obama, has made a livelihood out of failing to do so.

You have to have the votes to “stop Barack Obama”. Obama just won reelection, and his party controls one of two chambers of Congress.

mkfreeberg: If we accept the liberal’s definition of conservatism, we would accept “opposing progress” as our definition or something very close to that.

Certainly, some liberals would see conservatives as obstructionist, but that is not necessarily the case. Conservatives are wary of change due the problem of unintended consequences. They ideally demand some evidence of the efficacy of a reform, and some accountability if the reform fails.

mkfreeberg: Conservatism, to me, means having the wisdom to say: I don’t think this is working out. It means evaluating results, and heading wherever the best available evidence leads you.

Knee-jerk conservatives don’t evaluate evidence, but resist change. Knee-jerk liberals don’t evaluate evidence, but want change. Rational conservatives are wary of change, and demand evidence. Rational liberals want change, and demand evidence.
- Zachriel | 01/10/2014 @ 19:23
“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare!”

Said…who?
- mkfreeberg | 01/10/2014 @ 21:52
mkfreeberg: Said…who?

There are some reports of that exact phrasing, a town hall with Rep. Robert Inglish, a letter to Pres. Obama, but they are unsubstantiated. Nor would we want to paint an entire movement by the ill-chosen words of a few. However, the phrase encapsulates the views of those who don’t want government intervention in medical insurance, while resisting any reduction in Medicare. Here’s a typical example:

Sue Lowden, former Republican candidate for Nevada Senate: “Harry Reid’s big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill, jobs, push us further into debt. I’m Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong.

George Bush, former President of the United States: “And this frightens some people in Washington. Because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.”

Arthur Laffer: “If you like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government.”
- Zachriel | 01/11/2014 @ 08:01

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Republican’tsFriday, January 10th, 2014

Republican’ts
Friday, January 10th, 2014