Did We Already Win?
by Mark Adams
First of, I'm not trying to be cocky. So if this sounds cocky, well ... that's just me.
All would agree that there's been a steady trickle of sentiment towards a more liberal mood in America for some years now. You could almost track it with the inexorable downward slide in our approval of the Bush regime.
There have been signposts along the way, the rejection of Harriet Miers and John Bolton's nominations, collective disgust at the political exploitation of Terri Schaivo, the 2006 election was a sobering moment for everyone.
But the clearest indication I was on to something was the nomination of John McCain. His promotion to standard bearer of the Republican Party, to me, indicated a clear rejection of the neoconservative agenda by the folks who gave it breath: the Republican Party's rank and file.
Interestingly enough folks far more clever than I, and not especially noted as flaming batshit crazy liberals susceptible to wishful thinking that probably taints my take on the situation are coming to the same conclusion -- but from a completely different perspective.
See I tend to agree with George Packer's The Fall of Conservativism at The New Yorker (via: Cho at ePluribus Media) opinion that:
"The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in theYou've seen the disgust throughout Right Wing Blogistan with McCain, running the full sequence from outright rebellion, defection to plugging their noses. I believe an appropriate concluding clause to the above quote would read ... "Bush allowed to break into pieces ... and McCain buried."
2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by
significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the
movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan
gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized,
and Bush allowed to break into pieces."
They broke their own back, much the way the Soviets fell apart largely due to ignoring the economics of their predicament while ignoring the internal inconsistencies of a faulty and poorly executed ideology. Ironic that a movement whose nadir saw the death throws of communist imperialism believed it's own hype that they defeated the "Evil Empire" as opposed to simply watching it die has succumbed to a similar fate -- hubris leading self-immolation.
No doubt there will be Democrats who will spin this as "their" (ok, our) victory, but one only need glance at the record of Congressional Democrats since losing Congress in 1996, and Bill and Hillary Clinton's rejection of the progressive agenda since then to expose the lie that any Democrat brought about the end of the extreme right wing any more than Reagn somehow "Destroyed" the Iron Curtain. They just happened to be the folks in opposition when the nutbags lost it.
Bob Burnnet's HuffPost piece takes a different view on what McCain represents, however. To him, John McCain is the epitome of conservative orthodoxy, and he makes a very persuasive case. McCain indeed advocates the traditional pillars of conservativism: "gargantuan military ... small (innefectual) government ... tax reduction ... incompetent (corporate run) management." All of it combining into the unwieldy and corrupt industrial/military complex warned against by Ike.
So which is it? What does McCain represent? The death knell of ideologically driven right wing extremism, or more of McSame? I ask this more as an intellectual exercise since the prospect of a true empirical analysis of the question would require study of a McCain administration -- which I find to be not only a remote possibility but a horror to even contemplate.
Back when the GOP was parading their fractured coalition on nationally televised debates, they entertained us all as each out-of-touch representative of various splinter groups vied for the affections of the Republican voters: the robber barons represented by Romney, the evangelicals following Huckabee, the xenophobes cheering for Hunter and Tancredo, the media wing pushing Grandpa Fred, the libertarian insurrection led by Ron Paul, the Christianist favorite Brownback, the one-percent of the party's black supporters shaking their head each time Alan Keyes opened his mouth, and the neocons's darling of course was Giuliani -- but the military wing held on and allowed McCain to survive. Even then it was clear the days of the GOP presenting a unified front were long gone.
McCain himself may represent the blandest version of Republicanism, and therefore his orthodoxy is to be expected. However, the fact that one really must describe his status as their "presumptive nominee" because he survived, he's the "last man standing" says a lot. He didn't "win" so much as he didn't lose. By no means can he be described as the "Party Favorite." He isn't. He certainly didn't overwhelm his rivals through irresistible popular support. There's no "movement" behind him propelling him to the White House.
It's just his turn. It's his time and he's been set up to be a sacrificial lamb by people who haven't had an original idea since 1968, and are still fighting those same culture wars.
The Clintons too are veterans of the Baby Boomers' battle of attrition between the hard-hats and the hippies. Hillary's failure to hold back the tide of a movement that is sweeping Obama forward is not a signal that the hippies won, but that we are declaring the war is over and moving on.
The winning move here is not to play the same old game.
That means we must not simply replace Republicans with Democrats, enact liberal policies to fix the things conservatism has broken. We must (as an Obama Administration promises to do) completely transform the culsture of Washington D.C. The people are demanding, and the country desperately requires not only new people at the helm, better managers, more responsible financial stewardship, a smaller and more flexible military, a restoration of diplomatic respect, and an end to corrupt corporate cronyism; but also a change of attitude.
We need to hope again. We need to listen to our better angels, both here and abroad. We need to remember that America is the land that helps the rest of the world rise up and improve their lot in life, not exploit the rest of the planet's people and steal their resources.
We need to actually BE the people we are so proud of being.
If we do that, everybody wins.
What is it with McCain? The guy canNOT seem to run a national campaign for any length of time that doesn't implode and collapse upon itself. He did it in 2000; he did it in again in 2007 and he's doing it yet again in 2008.
Still, I wouldn't go as far as you, Mark, in suggesting that it's over for the Republicans. Not when they have guys like Charlie Black on their side:
For me, the defeat of McCain AND the disgrace of Black is necessary before we can say it's over for this generation of Republicans.
Yeah, but at least now we're bring a knife to this gun-fight -- or at least the sword of justice. The reason I supported Edwards, and still want him to be Attorney General, is because he not only wants to use every weapon on the real enemy of the people -- that mutated plant-life you described -- but has no qualms scorching the earth to serilized the landscape, preventing further infection.
[Lemme see if there are other metaphors I can mix today ...]
[HYDW]
{Translation For Eric: Here's Your Damn Winkie}
"What is it with McCain? The guy canNOT seem to run a national campaign for any length of time that doesn't implode and collapse upon itself. He did it in 2000; he did it in again in 2007 and he's doing it yet again in 2008."
The guy's nuts. I mean, really nuts (say it with me now: "McCain is Insane"). He's also not extremely bright.
"Bob Burnnet's HuffPost piece takes a different view on what McCain represents, however. To him, John McCain is the epitome of conservative orthodoxy, and he makes a very persuasive case. McCain indeed advocates the traditional pillars of conservativism: "gargantuan military ... small (innefectual) government ... tax reduction ... incompetent (corporate run) management." All of it combining into the unwieldy and corrupt industrial/military complex warned against by Ike."
There's a contradiction here and perhaps with your comment about his nomination indicating a rejection of neoconservatism (I may be misunderstanding your point) by rank-and-file Republicans. There's nothing orthodox about neoconservatism vis-a-vis traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism loved the military industrial complex as an end in itself with little intention to use it, certainly in any imperial way that might entangle us across an ocean.
McCain is a hard-core, unreconstructed neocon, who lobbied to invade Iraq when Bill Clinton was president and can't wait to start bomb, bomb, bombing Iran. The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has rejected neoconservatism but the media keeps hiding the fact that McCain is one so many may still like "the maverick" McCain. The authoritarian followers are ready for Armageddon, at least until they're the ones being called to meet their makers, and many of them are evangelicals who may overlook their distrust of him on "social issues" as long he stays sufficiently aggressive toward brown Muslims.
That's why I think that exposing McCain's warmongering craziness is the key. It will drive away libertarian independents and white women who are the only people who can elect him, regardless of what evangelicals and the 30% RWA dead-enders do.
Mark,
"We must (as an Obama Administration promises to do) completely transform the culsture of Washington D.C."
"The reason I supported Edwards, and still want him to be Attorney General, is because he not only wants to use every weapon on the real enemy of the people -- that mutated plant-life you described -- but has no qualms scorching the earth to serilized the landscape, preventing further infection."
Transforming that D.C. culture means running away from "scorching the earth" language. It has been used by both sides for too long. I understand that you want a break from the past decade or more. I'm of the opinion that the country, or at least 50-60% of the country, has been ready for a change for a change for a while.
Unfortunately, the idea that "only Nixon could go to China" is based almost entirely in the political reality of a democracy. You have to give some ground on the hard issue, take a risk. For example, I'd really like the right to give some ground on abortion and I'd really like to see the left cut an agreement on green initiatives.
However, currently no one has any incentive to do that. Even if Obama is elected he is part of an overwhelming minority in Washington that actually changing from 'snot a chance' to 'I see your point' will be a feet greater than summiting Everest. Maybe I'm underestimating Obama, but I have not seen the force of personality this sort of thing will require. All sides are aligned against it.
P.S. Thanks for the continuing education in the E Pluribus Unum in group sign.
P.S. Thanks for the continuing education in the E Pluribus Unum in group sign.
Actually Ara and I just make it up as we go and shep plays along to confuse DPU (but don't tell anyone I told you.)
"You have to give some ground on the hard issue, take a risk. For example, I'd really like the right to give some ground on abortion and I'd really like to see the left cut an agreement on green initiatives."
I'd love to see the right give some ground on anything. But that's not how they work, is it? Only Democrats compromise in the interest of moving the nation's business forward. As the neocons like to say about Hamas, or Iran or Hezbolla: there's no partner for peace for Democrats.
Really, Eric, your world view relies on the false premise that "conservatives" are willing, under any circumstances, to make government work for the people. They just need for the rhetoric to be better. That's ridiculous, "conservatism" is a reactionary, opposition ideology; against liberalism, against regulatory government and against Democrats who believe in those things. The only way we're ever going to get government to work again is get "conservatives" out of it.
Actually, the latest right-wing concern trolling I've read is upset with the prospect of a McCain Presidency precisely because he probably would "compromise" with the Democrats in the interest of "moving things forward." Whimp. Just like the whimpy Bush the Elder.
Remember, these people consider even sitting at the table with rivals giving in, unless it's to sit and watch the "enemy" sign onto their demands. (The perpetual "enemy" is always liberals. As we agreed years ago, they'll fight us to the end, and battle terrorists when convenient.)
"I'd love to see the right give some ground on anything. But that's not how they work, is it? Only Democrats compromise in the interest of moving the nation's business forward."
Mind explaining No Child Left Behind and prescription drugs, shep? The right isn't exactly a natural supporter of the Dept. of Education or gov't entitlements. Don't read two examples as an endorsement of the right, but they are glaring examples of the right doing exactly what you're asking and saying they never do. Now, you may not like NCLB (and I know I don't, though I'm certain that we also wouldn't agree with why), but the elected Republicans did compromise with the Democrats on a couple of big issues in the recent past.
However, shep, you still either refused to address my point or didn't understand it. The way politics works right now, no one is incentivized to use compromise as a default position. Politics is a zero sum game for both sides today, period, and both sides know it.
Eric,
re: NCLB and the prescription drug program.
Is it possible that, for Republicans, a job badly done is proof enough that the job should not have been undertaken in the first place?
Granted, they will probably never get to Phase Two wherein they sunset the programs. But I'm not necessarily convinced that the existence of the program is proof of "compassion" at all.
Ara,
Definitely a possibility. My thinking on the matter is merely that two parties that dislike the idea of compromising with each other tend to produce bad legislation when they do. That situation certainly lends itself to the sort of motives you suggest, though.
"Mind explaining No Child Left Behind and prescription drugs, shep?"
No, they were compromises between the right and George W Bush for the sake of political power. Or did you think they were for sound public policy reasons or just for the sake of compromise with Democrats (hint: those were not liberal public policies).
And, yes, I get your point about the political utility, or lack thereof, of compromise. My point is that it’s not just political. There’s no practical reason for Democrats to try to compromise with Republicans either. Though Republicans may soon find that compromise with Democrats is practically the only way to keep their jobs in government.