Category: Republicans

What Terrifies Conservatives?

Rick Perlstein has a piece in the latest issue of Democracy Journal that takes a historical look at how right wing propaganda has been developed over the last century to the point where it is a smoothly running machine today. One key point Perlstein makes is, “Historically, nothing has terrified conservatives so much as efficient, effective, activist government.” This bears out in an important way today in right wing attacks on public sector workers around the country, at state, federal, and municipal levels.

Governing well in the interests of the broad majority brings compounding political benefits for the party of government. Consider the famous December 2, 1993 memo by William Kristol entitled “Defeating President Clinton’s Health Care Proposal.” The notion of government-guaranteed health care had to be defeated, he said, rather than compromised with, or else: “It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.” Kristol wrote on behalf of an organization called the Project for a Republican Future. The mortal fear is that if government delivers the goods, the Republicans have no future.

The fear easily escalates unto hysteria: Activist government is a fraud in its very essence, an awesomely infernal political perpetual motion machine. “THE LIBS PLAN TO DESTROY US,” runs a recent email circulating widely on the right. The text is mostly made up of a list of government departments, agencies, and programs, “many with mutable locations through the nation.” It goes on to explain, “The people employed in these offices generally earn 31% more than their civilian counterparts.” (In fact, controlling for education and experience, state and local public employees make less than their private-sector counterparts, according to a September 2010 report from the Economic Policy Institute.) “All are supported 100% by the American taxpayer employed in the private profit producing sector.” The hysteria cannot allow, for example, that more private profit has been created out of thin air by a government invention like the Internet than any in the history of man: “they are all parasites.” This essay now arriving in thousands of ordinary, everyday email inboxes concludes: “Before the 50’s the Democratic party was very much the party of the average working man. . . . [Then] the socialists in the party realized that one way for them to gain power and influence was by creating jobs . . . GOVERNMENT JOBS.”

The baseline fear of government actually working is an important guiding post in understanding the right’s prolific attacks on public workers. Perlstein does great work explaining this phenomena, both in historical and contemporary contexts.

Do the rich need us?

On Twitter last night I saw NTodd (via Steve Benen) promote this post by Ted Frier of They Gave Us A Republic (neither a blogger nor a blog that I was familiar with). Frier writes an incredibly thoughtful and important post on today’s economic crisis and the cold way in which the wealthy – and their political proxies in the Republican Party – are showing disdain for the continued existence of the American social compact. Frier writes:

Elites can make money from factories in China by selling to consumers in India, says Lind “while relying entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country.”  Between the profits they can earn from overseas factories in countries policed by brutal autocracies, and factories in the US manned by non-voting immigrant labor, “the only thing missing is a non-voting immigrant mercenary army whose legions can be deployed in foreign wars without creating grieving parents, widows and children who vote in American elections.” That, maybe in part, is what the Dream Act is about.

There was a time when rich and poor alike subscribed to the promise that a rising tide raises all boats. But American investors and corporate managers no longer need the rest of America to prosper, says Lind, since “they can enjoy their stream of profits from factories in China while shutting down factories in the US.” And if Chinese workers have the impertinence to demand higher wages, says Lind, American corporations can find low-wage labor elsewhere.

…

The point is, says Lind: If the rich do not depend for their wealth – or even their security — on American workers, consumers and soldiers “then it is hardly surprising that so many of them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of the American people. The rich don’t need the rest anymore.”

That is all too evident from the contempt for the unemployed that we see coming from Republicans like Jim DeMint, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, as the severing of America’s historic social contract now finds institutional expression in a modern Republican party that has abandoned all pretense that it governs on behalf of those other than the upper class.

From my experience both inside and outside the Republican Party, I’ve gradually come to believe that one of the major differences separating Republicans from Democrats is that Democrats view service in Congress as the pinnacle of their careers while Republicans look at their time on Capitol Hill as an internship – a chance to do their time, pay their dues and build up a resume of favors and chits they can cash in later for a far more lucrative second career as lobbyist or corporate hack.

Yes, Democrats pass through the same revolving door between government and K Street that Republicans push on. But Republican behavior while still in government seems far more devoted towards creating jobs for themselves when that Big Day finally arrives and they get to make the jump to an appreciative corporate sector.

There’s real truth to this, though I think the break is more along the axis of conservative versus liberal than it is Republican versus Democrat. There are many conservative Democrats who do exactly what the Republicans Frier refers to in this passage. Later in the piece, he does get more specific along ideological lines.

Eventually, says Drum, someone needs to notice “that Republican policy is no longer rooted in any kind of recognizable conservative principle” and is instead “little more than a program of preventing the middle class from sharing in the gains of economic growth and divvying up the resulting loot among the richest of the rich.”

Conservatives, says Chait, have simply redefined conservatism to be nothing more than an expression of material self-interest, “defined in the narrowest and most short-sighted terms.”

And there’s the rub.  Conservativism is no longer a substantive ideology, but a vehicle to facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and working classes in America to the rich.

Go read all of Frier’s piece. It’s a thoughtful look at wealth, power, and economic voodooism that is driving change in America.

The Cost of Tax Cuts

Separate from the partisan ideological debate over what should be done in response to the pending scheduled expiration of Bush’s tax cuts, there’s a real argument to be had about how expensive these cuts would be if they were extended. Paul Krugman, in a column where he goes somewhat from critic to coach of the President, writes this about the short-term costs of a blanket extension of these tax cuts.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension — but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later?

America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

And we’re not talking about government programs nobody cares about: the only way to cut spending enough to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the long run would be to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare.

Keeping the tax cut expiration debate squarely in the realm of the political is a mistake. There’s no way to win this argument without talking about the actual economic impact these cuts will have down the road. At a time where there is a mania about deficit reduction, what the Republicans are pushing for truly represents a break with fiscal reality. As Krugman points out, the only way to pay for what the Republicans want is to thoroughly crush the social safety network…to pay for tax cuts for millionaires.

What’s most frustrating about how this debate has played out, again as Krugman notes, is that the GOP is blackmailing the President and Democrats in Congress. No more, no less. The response should come on multiple levels: as I said above, laying out the case for the fiscal irresponsibility of extending tax cuts to millionaires, a partisan assault framing for 2012 (which is where it has mostly been done so far), and a moral argument about pushing for handouts to Paris Hilton at a time when millions are about to lose their unemployment benefits.

Unfortunately, it’s late in the game. Though there is still nearly a full month before the cuts expire on schedule, there doesn’t seem to be a desire to have the fight that needs to be had. Maybe there really is too much at stake to deal in the details now, but I’m just hard pressed to believe that neither economics nor ideology have anything to play in the resolution of this legislative fight.

Pulling No Punches

I was recently visiting with my grandmother, who is an avid consumer of political news. She watches Ed Schultz and other MSNBC shows, reads some political blogs (mostly what I link to), and is highly frustrated by the lack of progress on the economy and the continued beating Democrats are taking at the hands of Republicans. One question she asked me was, “Does President Obama read Paul Krugman’s column?” While I assume Krugman’s pieces are in the daily news clips the President receives, I can’t state with any certainty that Krugman’s increasingly critical columns are really on the President’s radar.

But pieces like Krugman’s column today must surely set off alarm bells in the White House. The NY Times columnist pulls no punches, taking on the President’s decision to freeze the pay of federal workers and extent an olive branch to Republicans, which they return by pledging not to let anything move in the Senate until taxes are voted on (last night they subsequently blocked even tax cuts from moving forward). Krugman writes:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

Krugman might be describing these things in his column, but the Republicans in Congress are doing it out in public, through the legislative process. So while there is inevitably going to be frustration at the public criticism Krugman is leveling against the President, it’s just words in a column. The real offense comes from Republicans, who will continue to treat this administration and the legislative priorities of Congress – priorities which are driven by the needs of a country in economic crisis.

I would hope that people in the administration put this in front of the President. I would hope it makes him mad. But I hope that his anger gets directed at the real target, Republicans, and not at Krugman, who is merely holding up a mirror to the administration.

Playing Two Different Games

Politico’s Mike Allen:

Gibbs, to Meredith Vieira, on ‘Today’: ‘The president believes that somewhere in all of this, we can find common ground. … The American people … didn’t vote in November for gridlock.’

The entire GOP Senate caucus:

Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress, officials said Tuesday, adding that the leadership has quietly collected signatures on a letter pledging to carry out the strategy.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante said officials had confirmed the letter was being circulated among Senate Republicans.

If carried out, it would doom Democratic-backed attempts to end the Pentagon’s practice of discharging openly gay members of the military service and give legal status to young illegal immigrants who join the military or attend college.

It’s clear that the White House and the Senate Republicans have two diametrically opposed opinions of what the election meant in November. Oftentimes you hear talk of the brilliance of American voters, who will vote one party into the White House and the other party into one or both chambers of Congress. This recipe makes gridlock fundamentally likely and easy. Unfortunately it seems to be what the GOP wants to take away from the voters is that they should get to do whatever they want, regardless of its human cost. Blocking anything from happening is their mission now and will continue to be for the next two years. Pretending otherwise is going to be a very dangerous from a tactical standpoint.

It’s In My Raccoon Wounds

Paul Krugman clearly left his optimism behind when writing this column. I imagine the bolded part being read by Peter Griffin:

Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?

Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?

No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.

Sadly, I think Krugman is right. This is going to be terrible, especially for the economy.

The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I continue to hold out some hopes that Democrats hold the House, but I’m not too optimistic. I think it’s a near certainty that we hold the Senate.

Tea Party Savagery

Creator of Fox News/Dick Morris-pushed ads suggests Media Matters employees be “curbstomped”, 9/2/10:

A Republican strategist behind conservative ad campaigns fundraised for on Fox News by “Fox News political analyst” Dick Morris recently asked why the Media Matters “boys don’t get curbstomped fortnightly.”

In a September 2 tweet, Rick Wilson, who owns the political consulting firm Intrepid Media, wrote: “Aside from the fact a gentleman doesn’t hit women, explain to me why the MMFA boys don’t get curbstomped fortnightly?” The top definition on Urban Dictionary for curb stomping is, “To place someone’s mouth on a cement curb, and then stomp on their head from behind to break out their teeth.”

Tea Party activist and Rand Paul supporters Tim Profitt and Mike Pezzano, 10/25/10:Amazingly, today the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of the curbstomper, Profitt, in a full page ad in the Lexington Herald.The victim of this vicious attack, Laura Valle, has been diagnosed with a concussion, a sprained arm and a sprained shoulder, which according to the Rand Paul campaign means she “was not injured.”Naturally, Pezzano, who held down Ms. Valle while Tim Profitt stomped on her head and neck, was wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” button.Hopefully the gang of Tea Partiers who held down and beat this woman for disagreeing with her political views will be arrested and prosecuted. This is Tea Party leaders like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, and Joe Miller reaping exactly what they have sown. Their supporters are crazed and violent and there is literally no space for this in American politics.

What Digby & Atrios Said

Digby:

The Tea Party is the far right, period. They are not populists, they are opportunists who don the mantle of populism to give cover to the plutocrats. Hopefully, this election cycle has finally put to rest any notion that they are.

Atrios:

It’s quite fascinating pundits still haven’t figured out that the tea partiers are still the same racist authoritarian pro-big-business social conservative desperately afraid that the “wrong” people might be getting some of their tax money lunatics that have always been with us.

Yeah. I don’t get the notion that this is a new sort of crazy, radical Republican Party that we’re seeing. It’s the same it’s been for a long, long time (see any of Rick Perlstein’s books).