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.
The Purity-for-Profit GOP Leading a Reign of Error
The French Revolution began with disaffected aristocrats wanting to reform their stodgy, inflexible political system. If only King Louis XVI would accept a more liberal Constitutional Monarchy, France could enter into a bright new future.
Once the revolution was underway, a group of the bourgeoisie decided these modest goals weren’t progressive enough, so they formed the Jacobin Club to steer the reforms further to the Left.
When the king was deposed, a group of Jacobins decided the club itself wasn’t progressive enough. They brought in the lower classes and formed the Montagnards to steer the movement even further to the Left.
The ascendant left empowered Maximilien Robespierre to launch the Reign of Terror, but a group of Montagnards decided he still wasn’t progressive enough. They formed the Hébertists to steer the nation further to the Left still.
In American politics, a similar dynamic is taking place, this time from the supposed right:
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has been able to count on his Facebook page for stalwart support during his long-running battle with the House Republican leadership, including a successful effort to oust House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
“Keep up the great work,” read a comment posted last week. “We the people thank you for ridding us of John Boehner!”
But in recent days, the tone of the comments on Meadows’s page, and those of the other members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, have changed significantly.
“You truly should be ashamed,” one commenter wrote Thursday. “The people in the caucus will be held responsible come election day.”
“You should all be replaced,” a critic told Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.). Another called Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), one of the most persistent thorns in Boehner’s side, “a RINO establishment lap dog” and “another go-along to get along phony who will GLADLY step on the throats of the Conservative electorate.”
I say “supposed right” because many voices attempting to enforce purity on the House GOP are flirting with a big government presidential candidate. While screams of “RINO” and “sell-out” rise from the angriest corners of the Internet and talk radio, Donald Trump is sticking it to the squishes by promoting campaign finance reform, defending Medicare and Social Security, praising burkas, attacking the Christianity of his rivals, and subtly walking back his stand on immigration.
Today, a leading pro-Trump website hit the House Freedom Caucus for being establishment stooges. The article specifically attacks Reps. Mulvaney, Labrador, Amash, Jorden and Meadows; those congressmen have Liberty Scores ranging from 93 to 96 percent.
And if my inbox full of donation pleas is any guide, several political groups and conservative personalities have learned that the more shrill their cries for the heads of party leaders, the more money they make. As the purity-for-profit tumbrels roll down Pennsylvania Avenue, remember that every stroke of the guillotine leads to a smaller and meaner party.
A political movement waging a continuous reign of terror against its most loyal members is a movement doomed. It appears that many “conservatives” are so used to being against things, they no longer know what they’re for.
Published in Politics
JoJo – no American will work for the wages required to make the iPhone a viable product. Nor should they. A $10,000 iPhone wouldn’t sell and all the jobs that are based on it would be lost too.
They send money to you?
I don’t know about that.
It seems to me that most of the conservatives I know are in favor of limited constitutional government, want the laws made by legislators who come up for election, prefer that the government stay out of our lives as much as possible, and want to be governed by people who like and respect everyday, flesh-and-blood Americans, especially those who are known as taxpayers.
The conservatives I know want a strong border, a lethal military that is seldom deployed, private ownership of guns and plenty of free speech and assembly.
We are against very little: public liars, moral preeners, people who believe they were born to lead others, affirmative action for anyone except veterans, and citizens of foreign countries who believe they can become Americans whenever they want.
The closer a politician or pundit cleaves to the attitude of law and liberty, the more conservatives that I know tend to like him/her; the less they adhere to it, the more suspicious we are of their motives.
Why are we even talking about tariffs? The road to more American jobs isn’t a mystery, lower regulations, lower corporate taxation, and for a bonus, eliminate taxes that keep companies from repatriating their earnings so they invest that money back here.
About that time, Virginia had an election — and the shutdown hurt. Yes, you wouldn’t think it would matter at the state level, but it did — especially since Cuccinelli was (reasonably) perceived as a Cruz ally. Even though he stayed as far away from the shutdown as he could.
I don’t blame Cruz specifically for that loss — Virginia Republicans have plenty plus some to blame themselves for — but it was a heartbreakingly close race and the attorney general’s race was closer. It’s entirely possible that without the shutdown Ken Cuccinelli would be governor and Mark Obenshain would be attorney general. Instead we have McAuliffe and Herring.
If Cruz were right and had actually accomplished something, it would be worth those risks. But the nation gained nothing by it to outweigh what we lost.
How do you know Cruz didn’t accomplish anything?
The announced goal was the repeal of Obamacare. They could not repeal Obamacare in whole or in part. The Obamacare website did more harm to Obamacare than anything the Republicans in Congress on any side of the debate did.
Moreover, holding fast and continuing the shutdown would not have repealed it (in whole or in part) because the shutdown did not stop Obamacare funding.
So far as I can tell, the shutdown served primarily to help Virginia get a corrupt liberal governor and ideological liberal attorney general, and to help deepen division within the Republican Party (it’s not “the establishment” vs. “the base,” it’s different groups of conservatives vs. each other vs. moderates), just at the time when conservatives desperately need to be able to disagree among ourselves without destroying ourselves, and to ultimately present a united front on broad principle.
Instead, we have Trump and Bush, disuniting us and ripping us apart on most basic principle.
If Cruz did anything, he unmasked a division that probably couldn’t be papered over any longer.
The problem with the “united front” is that in real life it means, “shut up and don’t rock the boat.”
No, it doesn’t have to mean that. Certainly, that’s not what I mean here. I don’t mean any kind of unreachable perfection. I just mean the basic level of unity that successful political parties reach when they’re winning. I mean that the level of bitter division we have now is reaching the point where a third-party presidential campaign is theoretically possible (and incredibly dangerous for the country). That is not helpful, and not necessary. We are fighting bitterly over things (like the shutdown) that would become irrelevant the minute we actually held the White House.
Jack Kemp, where are you when the GOP needs you?
Most Republican presidents would take the same approach that Obama has taken to the budget. Whether or not we hold the White House is not that important in the scheme of things.
I perhaps overstated things. There is one class of persons to whom it is VERY important: Professional Republicans – those who make a living at being Republican.
It doesn’t have to mean that. It can mean getting the most conservative position that will get 218 votes. We can argue forever where that line is, but if people would rather vote for a perfect position that will only get 30 or 50 or 100 votes, it doesn’t make anything more conservative.
This is why I have so little enthusiasm about the fight in Congress. One side has no interest in getting the most conservative legislature and the other has no interest in getting to 218.
It doesn’t have to mean that, but with this crowd, that’s what it does mean.
The GOP hasn’t been able to accomplish any of that, either.
And after decades of watching the DC show I’m no longer willing make the assumption that the GOP even wants to do it.
It’s time for the long-running failure theater extravaganza to be cancelled, one way or another.
I’m not being pedantic. Actual facts and events matter. I’m continually told that any attempt to favor economic activity in the US over activity elsewhere will result in Smoot-Hawley and the total end of trade, as well as hastening the heat death of the universe by many billions of years.
I find this tiresome. The US has had a large and competitive manufacturing capacity for most of its history, if not all of it, despite the rest of the world also having industry.
What it has not had is a government that believes that the US is responsible for the entire world and everyone in it, believing that the actual United States so rich and powerful that disaster can never happen here. I note the endless inability or unwillingness of the government to lower the insanely high corporate rate. I humbly suggest that if the free trade policy was chosen simply for economic reasons the corporate tax rate would also be different- and much lower. The globalism of the American elite is the real problem here.
When Trump expressed his disapproval of Ford planning to build a factory in Mexico, I rejoiced. Finally someone who notices that the country has a problem.
The reaction of the GOP establishment to his candidacy says a lot about the party, nothing good.
Bingo!!
What if the tactic is to allow some of the policies you disagree to become law?
You left off the forth city: Vera Cruz.
Oh no you don’t. You are not going to blame the VA Gov race on the shutdown. That was due to the GOP Leadership in DC not lifting a finger to get Cuccinelli elected.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ken-cuccinelli-hits-gop-establishment-for-abandoning-him-and-the-partys-principles/article/2540378
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/6/tea-party-bitter-with-gop-establishment-over-gover/?page=all
http://theweek.com/articles/464126/did-virginia-republicans-just-throw-2013-governors-race
No it did not!! Stop trying to spread this false assertion. You show me an exit poll–because that is going to be the only real metric we have to measure this–that shows the majority of VA voters going to McAwful because of the shutdown.
Now a days, the President can just sign things into law and claim “Executive Action” and no one bats an eyelash. Look, the immigration thing at the beginning of this year was about whether or not the portions of the DHS budget that funded this should have been funded. If there was to be any type of shutdown, it would have been one department of the entire Federal Government. It also happens to be something that the GOP Leadership said they would go to the mat for. But of course, what happened? The whole thing gets funded–with the Executive fiat thrown in too. Let me tell you, as some one who works in intell, the fear of DHS shutting down and terrorists having a field day is nonsense. DHS doesn’t do a thing.
Oh, I can too say it was a factor. I just did. And I’ll say it again.
I remember all that. Lots of it was overstated. (They spent less than they had on McDonnell because they weren’t interested in going broke anymore.) But I live in this state and I know what the polls said and I know some of what I was hearing for people, and I know how Cuccinelli avoided the issue.
Now I also said I don’t blame the shutdown alone. McDonnell’s disaster had its role. Bill Bolling had his role.
But in a close race like that, every factor plays its part. Just like every Democratic senator was the deciding vote for Obamacare.
It matters immensely. At least when you say “not that important” I hope you don’t have the Supreme Court in mind. Because bad as Kennedy and Roberts have been at times — and it’s serious — we can’t afford to have them — or Scalia or Thomas — replaced with more Sotomayors.
I don’t have time to research at the moment, and I don’t know if there is exit poll data. And of course it didn’t influence a “majority.” It influenced a segment of swing voters, and perhaps enough to make the difference. I don’t know about the exit polls, but earlier polling did demonstrate that.
The way Cuccinelli — who is a Cruz ally — was handling the issue made it very obvious it was a problem for him. And my own impression from being here at the time was that it was not playing well.
Disagree, but don’t call it a “false assertion.” I was here, and it’s my very clear understanding that it was an issue.
Yes but you placed blame in your initial statement on the shutdown. You didn’t say “shutdown and….” You said shutdown. You made the insinuation that Cruz was the reason for McAwful’s victory. And if you read the piece from “The Week” that I posted, the GOP Leadership wrote Cuccinelli off before the shutdown. I live in Maryland, so all of the local news that you saw, I saw, and there was no mention of shutdown in the pre-game or in the post-game. The biggest thing that the media pointed to was Cuccinelli’s stance on abortion and his loss of the single women vote in the DC counties.
Swing voters? You mean the “independents” that Cuccinelli won? Sir, it is a complete false assertion. Here it is from the enemy’s own mouth:
Here’s the link. Time to find another boogey man.
BOOM!! Again from the Exit Poll:
Blame for Shutdown: 45% Obama, 48 % GOP, a statistical tie. Did shutdown affect your household? 32% yes 67% no.
False. Assertion.