Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republican Cynicism and Dereliction of Duty: Lee Atwater in Extreme
Many commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, attribute the Republican leadership’s timidity to fear of the mainstream media. Republicans, they say, are terrified of being called racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I don’t buy that. Yes, the Republicans may feel snake-bitten, but these are grown men who have been politicians all their lives. As politicians, they have one concern that trumps all others—getting re-elected, being in power. These Republicans are behaving so timidly because they believe that’s the best strategy to win the White House.
Simply put, it is Lee Atwater’s old strategy (if the other candidate is imploding, get out of the way) taken to its extreme, in that we are not talking candidates but the office-holder, with tremendous power to do damage to the nation. The strategy: the President is messing up, the country is upset, the country will blame the Democrats, so, let’s get out of the way. Most important, let’s not make waves, let’s not make a scene by opposing Obama. That’s too risky. We can make tepid noises, but let Obama have his way eventually. The country will be disgusted with Obama’s mistakes and we get the White House.
And the strategy seems to have worked for them. They have won back the House and the Senate, treading timidly. Besides, they reason, where can the base go? The base hates Obama and the Democrats anyway. Let’s save our fiercest attacks for the Tea Party and conservatives.
O.K., what’s the evidence? Look at what the leadership’s done. From experience, the Republicans know that the President is intransigent, does not like to compromise; heck, he doesn’t even like, it seems, to talk to Republicans. So with the House and now the Senate in Republican hands, what mantras did we immediately hear from Boehner and McConnell? No government shutdown! No government shutdown! The Republicans chose repeatedly to tie their own hands to avoid showdowns. On top of that, they also let the word out. No impeachment! Impeachment is out! Not the first black President.
Strategically, there goes the power of the purse. And that’s how we got one continuing resolution after another. That’s how we got nothing on dismantling Obamacare. That’s how we got executive amnesty. That’s how they surrendered on the executive amnesty, while pretending they would really, really fight amnesty during the Homeland funding. By which time, we got, oh no, we can’t overcome the filibuster. Oh no, our hands are tied. We’re so sorry, we really tried but we don’t have the votes. That’s how we make a mockery of immigration laws and the rule of law. That’s how we make a mockery of the 2014 electoral victory. That’s how we incentivize an increasingly imperial Presidency.
And now, the latest incarnation of this cynical strategy–the Corker Bill! So, we can actually have a straight vote on the Iran Treaty (however the President chooses to frame it). But that could be too confrontational–too messy, too risky. Let’s tie our hands ahead of time so we’ll need 67 votes to override a presidential veto. Then we can say we tried but we don’t have the votes. Yes, the country loses its constitutional prerogative to de-legitimize a bad Iran deal but it’ll get really upset and reward us—because again, where can the base go? Thus, the Corker Bill!
Costs and Consequences—the Republican Party and its leadership seem to be too clever by half; they think they have a winning strategy; they think they are getting away with it. What they should be thinking is how utterly cynical and unprincipled they look as the nation suffers while the opposition party deserts its responsibility to provide a voice for its voters–a dereliction of duty at a consequential moment in the nation’s history. Indeed, they should be thinking about the costs their cynical strategy inflicts upon the nation:
1) A Constitution that’s being humiliated daily, undefended;
2) The separation of powers, weakened as Congress cedes more and more power to the Executive to avoid messy showdowns;
3) The treaty clause, another inconvenience, better to be circumvented through Parliamentary tricks;
4) No government shutdowns, no impeachment incentivizing an increasingly imperial Presidency free from Congressional checks and balances;
5) A nation’s security at risk if a bad Iran deal should be reached;
6) A sense of lawlessness about, the rule of law as an institution fraying—heightened illegal immigration, illegal minors flooding the borders; an IRS that targets with impunity the political opponents of the sitting Administration–during an election year, no less; a police force under siege, seemingly profiled as inherently racist;
7) A people without a voice, when the opposition party chooses to go AWOL;
8) An ineffectual midterm electoral victory;
9) Deepening public distrust of Congress and politicians, the nation’s capital spinning daily, immersed in bald-faced lies;
10) A nation seemingly in quiet turmoil–anguished, frustrated, adrift, uneasy.
True, the mainstream media is complicit in the above but that makes the role of the opposition party doubly crucial—not least, to give a voice to the people, rather than desertion and parliamentary tricks to deceive. If the Republican Party and leadership thinks its cynicism and moral bankruptcy gives it a winning hand–because consequences (1)-(10) will lead voters to hand it the White House–it may be underestimating the electorate. Sure, voters have nowhere to go, but how does the nation benefit in the long run to hand power to a party led by men of such low character?
Rush is not quite right on this issue. The Republicans are not passive because they fear the media; they are passive, they are timid, they tie their own hands voluntarily to avoid political fights because they are executing what they think is a winning political strategy. Predictably, again, they are pushing for a milquetoast establishment candidate who will not make waves on Constitutional/rule of law issues beyond lip service. If that happens, do not be surprised if the Republicans again bite the dust in 2016.
Ultimately, conservatives need a strong political voice. That cannot come from talk radio, important as the medium is. Talk radio alone doesn’t quite cut it (necessary but insufficient). It needs a political party to organize, spearhead and craft a consistent message. To have a voice, conservatives need a political party.
I have heard that third parties do not work in a two-party country. But what about a third party that starts small, contests only in Congressional races (where there are run-offs) and caucuses with the Republicans in Washington? There are conservatives in Congress but they seem straightjacketed and subdued within the Republican thickets. I was wondering if they would have more of a voice if they belonged formally to a separate party that chose conditionally to caucus with the Republicans. (Similarly, the Tea Party in its present set-up is not providing the voice needed. They are constantly being demeaned by the Democrats, Republicans, and the media but do not have a national platform to make their case).
Published in General
I agree that the third party must choose districts with certain characteristics–like as you say blue seats occupied by DINOs and the Republicans are running, I presume, a RINO. But I would think it should formally be a third party which can then leverage its brand name and message further should its candidate win.
On the Democrat establishment fighting off the true believers, wouldn’t you say that already is sort of happening with the media apparently going after Hillary? I consider the media true believers who really want Elizabeth Warren. On another level, I do applaud them for investigating corruption, although I thought they should have moved much earlier when Hillary erased her email despite an order from the prosecutor not to do so.
On our people, I agree. I am encouraged by Cruz and Walker.
People Magazine just put out its issue naming the “Most Beautiful Woman in the World for 2015.” The winner was actress Sandra Bullock.
Among the runners-up was one Laverne Cox. Laverne Cox is a man.
The naming of a transsexual as a beautiful woman in the premier mass-market magazine in the US generated no wonder whatsoever. It certainly generated no outrage. I do not believe the event was even noted on Ricochet, in spite of this site’s claimed interest in culture and values.
There having been no pushback on Laverne Cox’s faux eminence, pray tell me, conservatives, what gob of saliva do you expect to receive in your collective eyes next?
Because it’s coming.
Leigh,
C’mon. Bumper stickers aren’t political discourse, they are political advertising. And advertising works.
Talk to some of your conservative friends, especially those who live or work in metropolitan areas or near universities – any place with a high concentration of Democratic voters. Ask them if they put a Romney-Ryan or McCain-Palin bumper sticker on their car during the election years.
Many will confess that they wanted to but didn’t – because they were afraid their car would be keyed.
Obama-Biden voters didn’t have that fear no matter where they lived.
Who is the strong horse and who is the weak horse? And which horse do people naturally go to?
I live in one such place.
Here’s a cultural moment that worked: Remember Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day?
I’m in favor of pushing back in creative ways and of assertion of influence where it works.
I think you’re saying is that you want your neighbor to get a sense of what intimidation feels like. I’m not interested in that tactic. Messing up someone else’s property is inconsistent with everything I believe in, and generally when you violate your beliefs to advance your beliefs it does not end well.
It could be the start of a game of “More Martyr Than Thou”.
Leigh: I have been following the downward trend of the labor force participation rate (LFPR) but I have not heard of organizations which “help people move into the worforce.” What organization would this be? If I am out of the labor force, if I want to get back in, I just have to start actively looking for a job–then I am counted as being back in the labor force. They work with people on skid-row? Get them in shape to go look for a job?
Or have I misunderstood you? By moving into the workforce, you mean getting a job, not the technical definition of looking for a job that the Labor Dept uses?
How then does your organization get people jobs–work the phones for them etc? I presume it is a private organization/or church?
Leigh: The problem is the lack of accountability — and yes, conservatives could do a better job providing it — not that we don’t do the same thing.
The problem is one of accountability and conservatives don’t provide it. That’s because the real problem is an imbalance of power between the two sides.
The Left attacks. Like a brawling club fighter anything he can try he will, because he knows there is no referee.
Conservatives jab, but they never fire their heaviest punches. Even when the Left is off-balance and his chin is wide-open they don’t go for the knockout.
Unfortunately, some of the Left’s punches do get through and hurt the conservatives. Worse, because the Left doesn’t fear the conservatives he sees no need to stop coming and punching. And worst, the onlookers inevitably begin to root for the Left, the fighter who is moving forward, forcing the action and setting the pace – the crowd-pleasing style.
At the end of each bout the conservatives bear the marks of a tough battle. They are often willing to settle for a draw. The Left is little winded, but unmarked and exuberant. He can’t wait for the next fight, when he can really “take it” to those namely-pamby conservatives.
Power. One side is on the attack and the other is trying to defend. When you’re on defense, you’re losing.
Losing is what happens during decline.
Actually, I should have put it more broadly — anything that supports upward mobility, I suppose. I had adult literacy specifically in mind.
Are these what they call “discouraged” workers who have stopped looking for work? And your organization helps them get some skills like as you say adult literacy?
I didn’t have one specific thing in mind, because everyone’s abilities and opportunities are different. But yes, there are organizations that seek to help adults achieve skills they need to advance in the workforce, including the basic ability to read. And civic education. Seems like something conservatives should be all about — and yet, so far as I can tell from my limited research and experience, they’re largely as liberal as anything else in the educational world.
Actually, if someone had money and wanted to do good, it seems like a huge opportunity. We talk about assimilation of immigrants — there’s actually things that can be done to help make it happen.
Leigh
Don’t violate your beliefs. Just understand and sympathize with those who feel they must and who take actions you may believe are extreme.
The way the Left does.
Or is decline an option?
We (and I assume you know who I mean) have been under the gun since Marx became the default position in opposition to Christianity and Western Civ in general. First he conquered the Europeans (our betters according to the left) and now the “last best hope for mankind” is circling the drain. Socialism by any other name has been winning since at least Teddy Roosevelt and shows no sign of stopping soon. Where have our versions of “Red Diaper Babies” been? They have known they were in a war to the finish and planned accordingly. We have been fat dumb and happy expecting the obvious correctness of our ideas to prevail. They haven’t.
I expect us to continue to lose until their inevitable tyranny becomes too much to bear and an armed revolution occurs, but I’m not holding my breath.
We may win a few battles here and there, but we are losing the war big time.