Tfgray’s Weblog

Everyone is poised to take their own lessons from last night’s election results. On the left, we have Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos:

GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary “bipartisanship”, you will lose votes.
2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3. If you forget why you were elected — health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform — you will lose votes.

In the middle, we have John F. Harris and Jonathan Martin over at Politico who state:

The off-year elections were, in two big races, an unmistakable rebuke of Democrats, reshuffling Obama’s political circumstances in ways likely to have severe near-term consequences for his policy agenda and larger governing strategy….

Obama now faces a much tougher challenge persuading these mostly moderate Democrats to put themselves further at risk by backing such liberal priorities as expanding government’s role in heath care or limiting greenhouse gases.

I haven’t check the rightward edge yet, but stand by my prediction that they see the results as an endorsement of their views, despite the fact that both gubernatorial candidates presented themselves as moderates and the unabashedly conservative candidate lost.

Update: the ousting of an RNC-approved candidate in favor of a conservative is apparently now the standard for “victory,” even if the conservative loses the actual election. At least according to Dick Armey. Somewhere, Rahm Emmanuel has just fallen down laughing. Hopefully, Rahm will make the case to the Blue Dogs that any step toward getting the progressive base to the polls will work in their favor. Not holding my breath, but not writing off the possibility, either.

For the record, I’m with Kos, but regard Politico’s warning as valid advice, although I think they are being disingenuous by ignoring the fact that Corzine was an unpopular candidate (the White House initially tried to dissuade him from running) and the flabby nature of Creigh Deeds’ campaign. Still,the Blue Dogs will most likely respond by becoming less willing to support a liberal agenda, which means that the Obama Administration will need to respond to the desires of their base in order to increase the pool of voters and make future elections repeats of 2008. Will they see it that way, or take the easy, downhill road of cutting their jib to fit the prevailing winds from established power brokers and cash cow lobbyists? We’ll see. And speaking to the critique from the right, those disaffected with business as usual are as fertile a field for the Democrats as for the Republicans, providing the Dems can resist the siren song of Washington.

New prediction: there will be plenty of primary action in 2010 in both major parties, but the conservatives will be more likely to pick up their marbles and run as spoilers if their primary battles are lost.

I would like to add one comment to my previous post. As a history buff, I’ve noticed that any movement that becomes obsessed with ideological purity–the Jacobins of France, for example, or the SDS of the 60’s–is on the road to self -destruction. Also, apologies to Creigh, not Craig, Deeds for my misspelling.

After watching a TV clip re Obama’s little gift from Chavez, learning that the book is now #2 on Amazon.com, and that #1 is Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, I went and checked out Mark’s book. I already have decades worth of reading under my belt re El Norte’s not too shining historical relationship with our fellow American nations.

Levin begins, of course, with the ringing words of the Declaration–well, actually, that comes a page or so later, after he defines Conservatism as “…a way of understanding life, society, and governance.” He then goes on to cite a number of Enlightenment figures as having given birth to Conservative thought. Locke, Montiesque, Adam Smith.

I looked at that, and it occurred to me that those men were the radicals of their day. They proposed ideas that were utterly opposed to the European hierarchical world view and allegedly “divine” right of kings to rule. They bolstered their argument against a divinely-sanctioned rule of the masses by the nobility with the assertion that God, indeed, was on their side. In fact, the “Conservatives” of that day, those who wished to “conserve” the existing social order, were staunchly on the side of the King, “For God and King,” as they proudly put it.

Maybe the problem is that the Conservatives need a new name, at least those who wish to parade under the banner of Enlightenment philosophers. Was it not American Conservatives who instigated Jim Crow laws and resisted the dismantling of segregation? Was it not American Conservatives who opposed Roosevelt’s opposition to the rise of Nazi Germany and his support of Britain under the Lend Lease program? Was it not Conservatives who opposed–violently–the right of American workers to peaceably assemble and freely associate in unions?

Maybe this is the real dogfight in the Republican tent. The intellectual heirs of those noble Liberal philosophers (which is what they called themselves) are somehow trapped in bed with the intellectual descendants of those who burned witches and homosexuals at the stake. They are in bed with those who never found a war they weren’t willing to send someone else’s kids to fight. With those whose allegiance to their right to property transcends any other consideration, such as other people’s lives, liberties, and property. Those who voted to deregulate interest rates and restrict debtors’ access to bankruptcy. To dismantle environmental protections. To grant no-bid contracts to war profiteers.

You can go to the above link to the book and read the first few pages. He segues pretty quickly from his noble definition of Conservatism to equate Liberal philosophy with”Statism,” or a blind belief that the bigger the government, the better, by which definition that Conservative darling, Mr. Bush, must be the biggest Liberal of all. I also could not help but notice that he did not quote a single liberal or cite a single source to back up his claim on that topic. Liberals, he maintains, are just gung-ho to destroy the individual in their quest for the perfect state. We are imperfect human beings, he asserts, but Conservatives understand that, and don’t get too bothered by it. Which somehow explains why prison populations ballooned under the Bush Administration and Republicans were able to win elections by such tactics as calling triple amputee Max Cleland a coward and that whole thing about John McCain’s alleged “black baby.” 

After eight years of warrantless wiretapping and torture under Bush, it’s the Liberals who are trying to destroy our Constitutional underpinnings. (Okay, I’ll admit Obama has me nervous on that point these days.)

But still, yikes!

Although I give him credit for his historical references to Locke, et al, I find him engaging in the usual Right Wing game of attributing every evil to The Other, and all virtue to one’s co-believers.

Here’s my definition of Conservative, “One who wishes to hold onto current structures, because one finds an advantage in the existing structure.”  For example, Jim Crow kept Blacks from obtaining decent wages and equal treatment under the law. While I grant that abortion opponents sincerely believe in the sanctity of unborn life, lack of choice regarding the number and spacing of one’s children does put women at a disadvantage in the work force, giving men an advantage when it comes to hiring, promotions, and raises. Discrimination against gays likewise diminishes their earning potential. Environmental regulations, their opponents freely admit, gunk up the profit machine by insisting that they clean up after themselves and leave at least a couple of stones unturned now and again.

If the vision of the Founders was truly enacted, there would be no discrimination against anyone. Period. The notion that the Founders were religious men has been disproven over and over. They were Deists, Freemasons, for god’s sake, believers in God as Reason, not as a spiritual being. The notion that the Bible is the source of all morality is likewise ignorant nonsense. While Social Conservatives do sincerely believe that they have cornered the market of Moral High Ground, the agenda of the Republican Party has long been the protection of a wealthy minority by means of an appeal to anyone who will turn a blind eye to their own self-interest in order to further their own hobbyhorse: ending the right of a woman to choose; diminishing the right of blacks, gays, or anyone defined as “other” to compete freely in the workplace; ending those pesky laws protecting air and water; secession from the United States.

High-flown rhetoric aside, this is the working definition of the current Conservative movement, and its near total dominance under Bush has sown the seeds of its destruction. As people are forced by economic events to notice that their own interests have been damaged by Republican policies, they leave. Of course, a parallel trend will take place, as the number of those who feel that they cannot compete in the workplace unless the deck is stacked in their favor will rise, as well.  Not a good trend, that one.

Today’s prediction:

What passes for the Republican Party will become increasingly shrill, as those with any degree of moderation will become alienated from it. If the pronouncements of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Bachmann, et al signify a trend, the Party is looking to the militant fringe to bolster its numbers, pulling them in from the smaller parties to the Right, including the secessionist movement. (You’ll notice they’ve been making a full-court press for that constituency the past few months.) If you’ll read my earlier posts on Authoritarianism, you’ll find that such control freaks generally despise their followers as easily-manpulated idiots, and assume that they can, with a combination of smoke, mirrors, appeals to traditional belief systems, and cold hard cash, extend their control indefinitely.

Just like the Saudis fund the Jihadists, thinking to channel their religious beliefs to turn their aggressive instincts outward, toward the Other, in order to protect their own status and wealth.

Ask anybody. The Saudis are very Conservative.

Just finished watching Obama’s speech and Jindal’s response. Even allowing for my pro-Obama bias, I think he hit a home run. By the end, even the Republicans were giving him standing ovations. He made his points clearly and addressed opposition concerns. He framed our current situation in terms of challenge and opportunity.

Bobby Jindal, not so much. The first detail I noticed, before he even made his appearance, was the Louisiana state flag on the right of the screen. It shows a pelican pulling feathers from her breast to feed her blood to her young. For those of you who did not have a Catholic upbringing, that is the symbol of Charity.  Just a bit of irony from the governor who is threatening to deny his citizens the benefits of their federal tax dollars. Ok, just those dollars that would put food on their tables while they’re hunting for their next job. Nice start.

Unlike the President, who is renowned for looking not only elegantly attired, but comfortable in his skin, Governor Jindal looked as nervous as a high school boy on his first date. He delivered his speech in a voice that reminded me of Mr. Rogers. On a Voice Thing (see previous post) scale of 1-10, I’d give it a 2.5.  He criticized statements Obama made a couple of days ago and soundly overwrote in this evening’s speech, making himself look out of the loop. He criticized FEMA’s conduct under Bush (without naming names, of course) giving it as an example of the way government must inevitably function.  After eight years of Bush secrecy (Remember Cheney’s Energy Task Force?) he slammed Obama for lack of transparency. Apparently he’s counting on a mass outbreak of Alzheimer’s.

He then went on to criticize Democrats’ refusal to include Republican proposals in the stimullus package, ignoring the concessions wrung by Specter and the good ladies from Maine, while proposing a continuation of Bush’s deregulatory policies. Oh, and he criticized the non-existent plans for that Disneyland to Vegas rail system before launching into what appeared to be his first campaign stump speech.

I’m with Annamarie Cox, appearing on Rachel Maddow’s show.

GAH!

Prediction:  Personally, I think Jindal scotched his presidential hopes in this speech, but I’m not a conservative Republican and have limited access to their thought processes. (See previous post What are Republicans Thinking? re Cantor’s braggadocio over his boys being resoundingly defeated in the stimulus package vote.) So maybe Jindal will get the 2012 nomination, unless he loses an arm-wrestling contest to Governor Palin. (Don’t bet against it).  The Republicans will allow their Right wingnuts the honor of losing to Obama in that cycle. This will have (from the country club Republican point of view) the benefit of discrediting their rightward fringe and not damaging the chances of any of their standard-bearers in 2016. Look for another ex-governor Bush tossing his topper into the ring then.

After reading about how the Republican Party’s primary support came from white, working-class voters in this past election, I just have to wonder at the Republican Senators’ insistance that the auto makers should be allowed to fold, even if it costs 3 million working class jobs.

Questions abound in my brain.

• Are they really that cruel to their supporters?
• Will their supporters be stupid enough to ever vote for them again?
•  Will anyone bother to point out that a major reason that Toyota, Honda, et al are eating Detroit’s lunch has to do with the decades-long auto industry/Republican collusion against stricter mileage and emission standards? Our cars cannot be exported to many countries since they don’t meet standards.
• Will someone please tell David Vitter that it’s not a giveaway, it’s a bridge loan?
• Will someone ask Richard Shelby why, since  he’s thrown plenty of federal (yes, porkbarrel earmarked) funds at Toyota in Alabama, are his knickers in a twist over a bridge loan to Detroit ? (Oh, right….it’s North of Alabama.)
• Will someone please explain to the Democrats that the Republicans play hardball on behalf of their true constituency, the top 1%, and that we hired them to stand up for the rest of us.

Oh…if history and memory serve, the Republican Senators will gladly vote in favor of the horribly wasteful spending bill if it is increased by a few billion worth of earmarks for their states.

Anybody want to make a bet?

Sometimes, reading political commentary, I think back to an early review of the Harry Potter movie, in which the writer chortled that it would be very weird to watch “an 18-year-old Daniel Radcliffe play Harry Potter in the seventh movie,” apparently not having done the basic homework of finding out that the characters age a year in each book as they progress through the Hogwarts curriculum. Today’s gem was the notion that by choosing Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Obama was going with a Left-wing Clintonite Washington-insider agenda. Basic homework again. Rahmbo has represented Chicago in the House of Representatives since 2002 and their families (yes, that includes wives and kids) are friends.

So, like, if even that guy can make predictions, why not me? Here they are:

• John McCain will position himself as the go-to guy for the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Lindsay Graham has already positioned himself as wingman, and I suspect that Lieberman will offer himself as Third Musketeer.
• If Ted Stevens is dumped (and they don’t find the missing ballots in Anchorage that might conceivably go to Mark Begich) Sarah Palin will run for the Senate. The fact that she said she wouldn’t is proof enough for me.
• The rightward edge of the Republican Party will become a dogfight between the Social Conservatives and the NeoCons. If Palin makes it to the Senate, the SDs will coalesce behind her, if not, Huckabee. The NeoCons, not having realized that the rest of the country thinks they are criminally insane, will try at least one highly dramatic legislative stunt, which will backfire. It is also possible that the SDs will also try at least one highly dramatic legislative stunt, to similar effect.
• The moderates will stay out of the dogfight, cut deals with Obama, and wait until things sort themselves out before aligning with the winning faction.
• We will make more progress toward developing alt energy and solving global warming in the next 8 years than in the last 30.
• Someone will notice that Sarah Palin talks more than Joe Biden and call her on it publicly.