The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
In the Washington Post, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have just published a comprehensive attack on the Republican Party. A sample:
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition....
On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident voices.
For decades, Mann (pictured on the left) and Ornstein (to the right), both attached to Washington think tanks, have passed themselves off as above-the-fray, utterly impartial, interested not in ideology but in getting things done. Which is to say, of course, that they reflect, without the smallest flaw or distortion, the conventional wisdom of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, both of which believe that ever-expanding government is simply the result of responsible governance.
Now here's what's interesting. During the very period Mann and Ornstein deride, the supposed crackpot and marginal GOP has captured the House of Representatives in one of the biggest electoral swings in congressional history, picked up seven seats in the Senate, and chosen to nominate Mitt Romney, who, even though in many ways a remarkably weak candidate, nevertheless is already virtually even with the Democratic incumbent in national polls.
Mann and Ornstein don't have a problem with the GOP, in other words, they have a problem with the American people. "Shut up, sit down, and let people like us run the country." That's what Mann and Ornstein--and, again, the media and Democratic Party--have convinced themselves is the message, the responsible message, to carry into this election year.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Romney may yet win in a landslide.
- Comment (71)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
The Mann/ Ornstein essay is more evidence, as if any were still necessary, that the Washington establishment still has not recovered from 1994.Those who are under 35 or so, perhaps a bit younger, probably cannot understand the significance of that election. It was, or seemed, unthinkable, that the GOP would run Congress. When the GOP took Congress, the DC establishment felt that their property had been taken away from them. Hence their discussion of Gingrich--the man most responsible for 1994. In the view of the DC establishment, the job of the GOP is to play the role of the Wasington Generals--the team the riturally loses to the Harlem Globetrotters every day. Put up a token oppoition, and lose. Newt changed that. Many have never forgiven him for it.
There's also the reality, well described in Tim Groseclose's book, that there is a large gap between the political spectrum of the elite establishment (roughly those who read the NY Times first thing every day), and the country as a whole. The trouble is that the elite establishment does not recognize that it's "mainstream" is skewed Left.
Edited on April 29, 2012 at 7:31pmAug '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Liberty Dude
You're not alone Tom. I think this will be huge. · 3 hours ago
Must... not... get... overconfident...
But I agree, now stay focused and push!
Oct '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Paul A. Rahe
Joseph Eagar
How can you believe that? · 1 hour ago
I was around in November, 2010. Where were you? · 9 hours ago
Which proves what, precisely? That people are willing to give up the benefits they've voted themselves, and both parties accommodated? Professor Rahe, you yourself have expressed opposition to cutting back the charitable giving deduction, if I remember right. Everyone has their pet issues, which is why cutting is so hard.
Oct '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Lexington’s column in this week’s The Economist titled “Are the Republican’s Mad?” discusses Mann and Ornstein’s new book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks and contrasts it with Grover Norquist’s new book Debacle.
Mann and Ornstein fall prey to the ill they decry: they question the legitimacy of a political party with which they are in disagreement. One of their proposed fixes for the ignorant voters who have caused this situation is to have the media stop providing balanced coverage of the unbalanced Republicans.
Having just read Sean Trende’s The Lost Majority, I find it hard to believe that any serious political scientist would give any credence to the argument of Mann and Ornstein.
Convincing people to give up benefits to which they believe they are entitled is not easy, but I don’t think we have made our case yet with the American public. We need to do that each and every day between now and November. We have many excellent examples like Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels’ arguments on which to build our own arguments. If we persist, we’ll be rewarded with a Republican president, Senate, and House in 2012.
Jul '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Nice insight. But has no one noticed that opposition to Obamacare in the House was bipartisan? As I recall, it passed with 219 votes when there were, what, 260 some Dems.
Oct '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
this is the genius of the GOP/Tea Party primary: the remaining top 4 after Feb 2012 were Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. The weakest moderate that can win (romney) vs the weakest conservative candidate (santorum) vying for the nomination.
The top 3 most viable non-Romneys got eliminated first--Pawlenty, Perry, Huntsman. Daniels opted out from the very beginning.
Apr '12
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
John Marzan
this is the genius of the GOP/Tea Party primary: the remaining top 4 after Feb 2012 were Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. The weakest moderate that can win (romney) vs the weakest conservative candidate (santorum) vying for the nomination.
The top 3 most viable non-Romneys got eliminated first--Pawlenty, Perry, Huntsman. Daniels opted out from the very beginning. · 8 hours ago
John,
Could you explain to me how Santorum is conservative? Much like Obama, he believed he could fix the economy with his master plan - focusing on his pet industry, manufacturing. Manufacturing can no longer serve as the primary basis of the American economy - we have progressed beyond it, in the sense that most jobs are now done through machinery. Santorum's pipe dreams would be nearly as damaging as Obama's investments in Solyndra. If manufacturing could save the economy, the private sector would've done it already.
As you say, anyone more conservative than Romney dropped out early or did not run.
May '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
AEI is my favorite think tank, by a wide margin. I don't support them- instead I contribute to the (Minneapolis) Center of the American Experiment because I never want a nickel to go to Ornstein. Period.
Someone point that out to Arthur Brooks.
Apr '11
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Liberty Dude
John,
Could you explain to me how Santorum is conservative? Like Obama, he believed he could fix the economy with his master plan - focusing on his pet industry, manufacturing. Manufacturing can no longer serve as the primary basis of the American economy - we have progressed beyond it, in the sense that most jobs are now done through machinery. Santorum's pipe dreams would be nearly as damaging as Obama's investments in Solyndra. If manufacturing could save the economy, the private sector would've done it already.
As you say, anyone more conservative than Romney dropped out early or did not run. ·
Santorum chaired the committee that produced welfare reform. He engineered the brilliant Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which not only did direct damage to the left, but transformed the politics and led to rafts of pro-life state victories.
Santorum was more responsible for Newt's biggest success than Newt, and while he sometimes shared Newt's love of earmarks and big government (and his love of pretending to love small), he didn't share Newt's personality, strategy, or tactics, but instead embraced principles over self-centeredness and consistently supported other conservatives and conservative causes.
Oct '10
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
James Of England
Santorum chaired the committee that produced welfare reform. He engineered the brilliant Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which not only did direct damage to the left, but transformed the politics and led to rafts of pro-life state victories.
Santorum was more responsible for Newt's biggest success than Newt, and while he sometimes shared Newt's love of earmarks and big government (and his love of pretending to love small), he didn't share Newt's personality, strategy, or tactics, but instead embraced principles over self-centeredness and consistently supported other conservatives and conservative causes. · 10 hours ago
I don't know. The Dems were a little too excited over a Santorum candidacy for my piece of mind. I still think he would have damanged the party and movement conservatism.
Apr '11
Re: The GOP, Evil Empire. (Tee Hee.)
Joseph Eagar
James Of England
Santorum chaired the committee that produced welfare reform. He engineered the brilliant Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which not only did direct damage to the left, but transformed the politics and led to rafts of pro-life state victories.
I don't know. The Dems were a little too excited over a Santorum candidacy for my piece of mind. I still think he would have damanged the party andmovement conservatism. ·
You can be conservative and do the party harm for the long term; Goldwater is the classic example. We don't have a great example of movement conservatism being damaged by a conservative; 41 might be a good example, but critics say he's not conservative and fans that he's supported the movement (the Tea Party didn't come from nowhere.)
The Dems were excited by the thought of a Goldwater level defeat. I'm not sure he'd have been terrible for the conservative movement (I also think the Dems were wrong to think he'd be defeated in a big way in November, but that's obviously kind of untestable).