The Big Republican Bet and Open Thread!

Comments are back! 

I strongly suggest that you read this fine piece by Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine in which he tries to explain why the Republicans are doing what they are doing -- and the likely long term implications of the disastrous demographic bets that they continue to make.  It is as good a description that I have yet read of a phenomenon that I have discussed frequently over the last couple of years.  I am a huge believer in group identities as a key in politics and tend to think that voting behavior is often best described in these terms. (James Fallows weighs in in a similar vein.) 

Thus, I find suggestions that eventually Hispanics will vote "white" and be amenable to the GOP's message to be far too flexible in their sense of how deep voting behavior is embedded in the collective psyche of peoples.  The generation of young Hispanic voters coming of age now -- and those who will hopefully be the beneficiaries of a Democratic backed immigration reform plan in the near future -- is experiencing the Republican Party as a force for intolerance and hatred.  This is not some fine policy dispute or quibble over legislative tactics -- it is a gut level assault on an ethnic group that I am confident is being experienced as such.  People whose political identity is forged in this particular crucible are not easily going to find their way to being Republican voters in the future.  (Some right wingers take hope in the idea that an enlarged Hispanic voting bloc is going to result in more whites voting Republican -- that is possible, but I tend to think that younger whites are also being pushed away from the Republican Party to some degree -- certainly along the coasts and in the northeast and northwest -- especially by things like the Blunt Amendment, the Santorum campaign, and the grotesque homophobia of the GOP.)

These kind of large scale political battles or cultural occurrences -- from the Civil War to the Great Depression to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights struggle -- disrupt and then solidify political identity often for a period of generations.  (Look at Southern whites and their peculiar form of Democratic party allegiance that lasted a century following the Civil War.  Civil War allegiances were also probably the single most important aspect of northern national politics too up until the Great Depression.  Democratic presidential candidates were virtually shut out in the northern states in many of the elections between 1868 and 1932, winning the presidency only when a New Yorker was at the top of the ticket in 1884 and 1892, when the GOP split in the 1912 election, and when Woodrow Wilson squeaked to reelection in 1916 by carrying Ohio by 90,000 votes.)  

Right now the Republican strategy appears to be to use voter suppression and maximalist legislative tactics like Indiana's right to work law and the Wisconsin anti-collective bargaining law to cling to power and destroy their opponents before the day of reckoning comes.  

I am pleased to say that I don't think their tactics will work, although the battle will be brutal.

So now, finally, please weigh in here and in the other threads if you so wish.    

Comments

[Sir Charles]

Testing, testing, testing.

[oddjob]

Apparently while Romney only won Michigan by 3%, in the delegate count he & Santorum tied: 15-15.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Now the Michigan GOP has changed the rules of the game and awarded Romney both of the at-large delegates, putting him up 16-14. It seems a dubious bit of business and has made the Santorum team nuttier than they already were.

[kathy a.]

it pisses me off plenty that it is apparently now OK to attack women. across ages and ethnic groups and levels of income, women generally have some common issues -- for example, we'd like to be treated as full humans, have fair access to opportunities, and not have government all up in our personal bodies. most of us, anyway.

[Joe S]

I know I'm not supposed to invoke Godwin's law, but I can't help comparing the current movement conservatives to the Germans on the Eastern Front in World War II. Not in their brutality- but in how they fight. The Germans were always looking for a big knockout blow against the Russians (and later in the West). They also never gave an inch or retreated. When the strategy worked, it really worked. When it failed, it really, really failed.

The Repubs seem to be replicating the strategy- big offensives and counteroffensives. They go long every time. They never retreat- they're only defeated. In Wisconsin, a Tommy Thompson clone could probably be governor for the next 20 years. But Walker goes for gusto. The problem for the GOP is that, like the Russians, the Democrats can absorb even big losses (because of demographic factors). That means that even a big win by the Repubs is temporary, and when they lose, it's disastrous.

[big bad wolf]

i think there is a military tactics exception to godwin's law, joe

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I concur with bbw -- war tactics are exempted.

And yes, the Republicans do seem wedded to brinksmanship. I am amazed that Scott Brown, who has always struck me as having really finely honed political instincts, got sucked into voting for the Blunt amendment today.

The rejection of the Bush and McCain line on immigration reform -- followed by the virulent anti-Hispanic laws adopted in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, etc. is really an extraordinarily dangerous move -- one that could eventually put places like Georgia and even Texas in play.

[Hitler's tactics on both the Eastern Front and in North Africa were incredibly wasteful -- fortunately. Had he allowed for strategic retreats and pursued less grandiose offensives the was might have dragged on quite a bit longer.]

[beckya57]

Chait's piece was indeed interesting. I generally concur with Kevin Drum that Chait's hypothesis, that the GOP knows it's demographically doomed and is going all-out to roll back the New Deal while they still have a window to do so, is probably flawed. I question whether the GOP really realizes the corner it's painted itself into. Maybe some of the leadership does, but the base sure doesn't; they think most "real Murkins" agree with them. That's the problem you develop when you live in an echo chamber that doesn't allow competing viewpoints any entry. I do think Chait is quite right that the GOP has probably alienated Hispanics and also many young voters permanently (my understanding is that voting behavior usually gets established before age 30, and rarely changes after that).

On a different subject, did any of you see David Frum's obituary of Breibart today? It's brutal, but I think quite accurate, not only in its condemnation of Breibart but of the media style he represented more generally.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I definitely think there is a strong element of the believe your own bullshit problem with the GOP. The amazing decision to pursue the Blunt amendment, not to mention trans-vaginal ultrasounds bears that out. But I also think that there is a strategic element to the attacks on unions and voter rights to try to alter the power dynamic -- while also trying to discourage people from believing that government can help them.

I read Frum's piece and was actually going to link to it. I thought it was really well done in terms of tone and content. It is very difficult to do this -- I have for the most part avoided writing about dead right wingers because it tempts one to be small. But I also have a hard time white washing the evil men do.

[beckya57]

Hi Sir C,

I certainly agree that there are a lot of strategic elements in much of what the GOP does. You mention 2 good examples; another one is the endless demands for "tort reform," which translates to "trying to bankrupt a bunch of important Democratic contributors." What's interesting to me lately, however, is the degree to which the party has been captured by its crazy element, which is leading it to practice unpopular politics. The Blunt amendment, the TVUs, and the Ryan roadmap with its highly unpopular proposals to end Medicare are all examples of the leadership acting crazily, in ways that will hurt them with much of the electorate, rather than in their usual cynical style. I think much of what they have done in the past 30-40 years has been (unfortunately) well-thought out in terms of the politics, and very successful, but now they've gone well beyond that to crazyland. (The Ryan roadmap is somewhat different than the other examples, in that it is an obvious attempt to please very powerful, very wealthy constituencies, but still, the GOP used to know better than to try to dismantle Medicare, and they clearly didn't learn anything from the Bush debacle over Social Security.)

[KN]

I know this is not an open thread but I am going to venture OT to mention the death of Breitbart. Frankly, considering the comments he made about the death of Ted Kennedy, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person though justice might have been better served had he succumed to syphilis.

The degree of harm criminals inflict is hardly ever equal to their comeuppance.

Good riddance.

[Sir Charles]

Becky,

I agree with everything you said there. The Republicans were always a party in the Reagan and post-Reagan era that was fairly adept at saying one thing and doing another. They were pretty selective about the conservative principles to which they adhered and largely adopted a kind of Keynesian strategy -- tax cuts (albeit wickedly inequitable ones) and high defense spending as the heart of their economic program. They pretty much left entitlements alone -- indeed Reagan oversaw the Social Security fix in 1983 that extended the programs solvency for a couple of generations.

Even Bush 43 was wedded to a kind of practical electoral politics, which included solidifying the loyalty of senior citizens via Medicare Part D ( a massive expansion of the welfare state and completely deficit financed) and trying to compete for Hispanic votes via immigration reform. Bush had many flaws, but intolerance towards Hispanics was not one of them -- and actually Bush didn't really engage in racial dog whistling either that I can think of. Bush and Rove, being from Texas, understood the crucial electoral need to not turn Hispanics into the equivalent of African Americans in terms of voting behavior. (If that ever happened -- say the Dems get 85 to 90% of the Latino vote, the Republicans will not be able to compete on a national level in their current form). Rove was looking to expand the Republican coalition just enough to keep it a majority party.

The current generation of Republicans -- particularly the 2010 class and its cheering squad at Fox, right wing radio, and the right wing blogosphere, actually believe the nonsense that the party has been spouting for years. Hence, things like the Ryan bill, the extreme anti-choice and anti-contraception legislation, the brutal attack on immigrants and gays, and the overt attacks on public employee unions -- among whose members Republican used to do just fine, particularly in the police and fire services.

It's an amazing crack up -- one can only foment hatred for so many segments of the electorate before it bites you in the ass. I think that day is coming.

KN,

It is an open thread -- a celebratory open thread at that after days of enforced silence.

I really loathed Breitbart, but I still try to avoid trashing the dead -- even though he never showed that courtesy himself. The last clip I saw of Breitbart at the recent CPAC conference here in DC, where he is berating a crowd of liberal protestors made me think he was deeply unwell. It did not shock me that he had a heart attack.

[MR Bill]

“I like to call someone a raving cunt every now and then, when it’s appropriate, for effect... ‘You cocksucker.’ I love that kind of language.”-Andrew Breitbart

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301#ixzz1nyI6qMFs
For my part, I wish the dude wasn't dead, if only to face a slandered Shirley Sherrodd in her libel lawsuit. His serial lies and racist rant on the Pigford settlements alone would make great legal drama, and exposing this nastiness would be a service.
Indeed, when I saw the news, my first thougt was it was suicide to avoid the trial.
His destruction of ACORN, lies about Pigford (suggesting that the payments to black farmers discriminated against for years by the US Dept Agriculture were "reparations" and not legitimate), attacks on Planned Parenthood....well, he was a political operative and dirty trickster, a propagandist and not any kind of journalist. I hope Shirley Sherrodd allows the suit to proceed against his 'media empire'.
Been even crazier busy with play, not near a computer too much, and then not motivated to comment.
The GA Legislature is a parade of horrors just now: a proposed law would make picketing illegal ; a charter schools bill that would tend to defund public education; and Georgia Power (a Southern Company) looks poised to kill a solar energy law that 45 other states have signed onto...And there are antichoice bills lurking...

I've been terribly busy: among the other stuff (family, Tim, work, and our long running saga of getting the solar array to pay up and finish the site cleanup/landscape..)the Play, is kicking my butt. I'm onstage all but 4 minutes of 2 hours, and bouncing off the walls most of the time.
The good news is that, beyond the partisans, most folks are bemused by the Republican idiocies: I'm seeing more pushback in the letters to the editors of the local papers (on, say, the Affordable Health care act, or the provisions that would tax capital gains over 250K for Medicare..), some rather conservative folks have expressed horror and disgust with the antiwoman/anticontraception campaign. (One guy had the worst analogy I've heard on the Fetal Ultrasound bills: "It's like PETA make you watch slaughter house videos before you had a hamburger.." (I experienced brainlock before I could opine that an abortion isn't exactly like a meal.)
And, when I got a chance to Pay my Property Taxes(and I'm glad to) and go early vote, the poll worker said Democratic turnout (Obama is the only candidate in the Dem Primary) is actually up..
Glad the site is working again.

[Paula B]

What happened to JeanneMarie's comment? It was here a few minutes ago.

[jeanne marie]

It's back, paula. I originally linked to my link on my facebook wall (instead of to the original link at TNC). Oops!

Let's try this again:

A thoughtful and kindhearted eulogy for Brietbart - sadness for the missed opportunity for enlightenment for a man who pursued a path of cruelty.

[Sir Charles]

jm,

That's good.

I liked Matt Taibi's the best of all. It's linked at LG&M from yesterday.

[Lex]

Interesting that both Joe S. and our host saw a parallel between the GOP as explicated by Jon Chait and the Wehrmacht in WWII. Unlike them, however, I didn't see this as similar to the Wehrmacht's Eastern Front tactics/strategy so much as the late 1944-early 1945 Ardennes offensive, better known as the Battle of the Bulge.

That desperate offensive by the Germans (for which, by the way, sorely needed men and material were diverted from the Eastern Front) was intended to drive to Antwerp, splitting the Allied forces on the Western Front in two in the hopes that Germany could then sue for peace with the Anglo-Americans on terms less stark than unconditional surrender. The strategy behind that plan was that Hitler still believed that with a truce in the West, his Wehrmacht could still fight the Red Army to a standstill.

From a demographic standpoint, that's the best the GOP can hope for right now, so this is their Ardennes offensive.

The original Ardennes offensive was stopped by a combination of virtuosic performance by Patton's Third Army and unexpected clearing of the winter skies, so that the Allies could bring their overwhelming air superiority to bear.

There's nothing in the current situation analogous to air superiority, so I predict that the GOP will force a stalemate, where we'll sit for 10 or 15 years, unable to do much one way or the other on public policy, until another crisis panics us into more ill-considered choices.

[Sir Charles]

Lex,

That's a pretty good analogy too. And yes, I think the next ten to fifteen years could see a lot of gridlock.

I was trying to war game the immediate political future out this morning with a colleague of mine and I must confess I don't see a lot of chance for significant progress on the federal front for a while.

I am now pretty optimistic about the fall and believe that Obama will get reelected and that we have a pretty good chance at keeping the Senate and possibly even taking the House by a narrow margin. But the filibuster will continue to be abused and the margins in both houses under even a best case scenario are likely to be thin. So nothing monumental is going to happen.

The mid-terms in a six year term are seldom good -- unless like in 1998 there is an attempt to impeach Obama -- and the Dems are usually weaker in them now than in presidential years, so I can't see making huge strides there. In fact, the most likely outcome will be a slight loss in both houses.

2016 is likely to be a difficult year. Holding the presidency for three straight terms is difficult. It has been done only once since WWII -- 1980, 84, and 88. FDR managed the feat by himself and he and Truman ran off the nearly unprecedented five consecutive terms. The Republicans managed it from 1920-28 and 1896-1908. Prior to that Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, and Garfield pulled off six consecutive terms as did Jefferson, Madison, and Munroe before them.

The structure of the Senate is always going to be a difficult thing for Dems, given our significant weakness in rural states. That is one of the reasons that I think we have to learn to live with the likes of Ben Nelson or Bob Kerrey or Blanche Lincoln where necessary. It's not great, but it beats the alternative.

[Crissa]

The GA law means that the power company could technically refuse to buy any power from someone who leases the building but owns the panels or vice-versa, too. Bizarre. Why would they want to lobby against basically free capacity?

[nancy]

First -- I'm glad radio silence has finally ended. Lots. :)

Second -- Do we suppose we'd be so fortunate as to have Breitbart's voice and Rushbo's stilled in the same week? Rush is losing sponsors by the hour apparently. Maybe we'll get to witness a moment when the right's over played hand finally has to fold. New deal.

*Contraception 2012!* will be my bumper sticker for the upcoming season.

[Sir Charles]

MR Bill,

Jesus, it's hard to believe just how much bullshit can be packed into one legislature.

Crissa,

Corporate power seems to need no reason these days. Much like Republicans.

Nancy,

I can't imagine that Limbaugh would actually be pushed off the air. He's too powerful.

Interesting side note -- Limbaugh's employer, Clear Channel, is owned by Bain Capital.

[oddjob]

Ta-Nehisi Coates considers Breitbart's life in the context of the life history of Shirley Sherrod (which encompasses much more than her time at the USDA) and writes a home run of a post (as it were):

On Making Yourself Right

[KN]

I'm a little hesitant about the combat tactics analogies but one other element in the Ardennes offensive was the Germans ran out of gasoline. They failed to reach a key object (I for get where) of a large fuel depot. The corresponding factor in US politics these days would be money and the republicans seem to have an unlimited supply of that. They also seem to have a captive media arm. I have heard recently of a book by the title "The Fox Effect" which apparently spells out the incestuous relationship between the GOP and Faux News. I'd like to read it.

The down ballot election is the one that has to be won by liberals/progressives for any significant policy progress to occur in the next 4 years. The republicans are dismantling state governments wherever they can get away with it (states where they have a lock on all three branches) though they are getting some pretty strong push back in a few places. Is the DNC even trying to mobilize the base on this level?

I see some great opportunities for the dems in this cycle if they are insightful and brave enough to embrace and enliven a long suffering electorate. To my mind Obama has passed muster and then some, he can inspire other dems if they will pay attention to him and get over their own reluctance to support him. Interesting times indeed.

[beckya57]

I don't think Limbaugh will be pushed off the air, but he is losing sponsors. I suspect some pressure may be put on him by his employers to tone it down a little. The pushback against his latest rant is coming from many sides, not just ours; even Boehner was (mildly) critical, and it's almost unheard of for the GOP leadership to criticize Limbaugh. The bit about how Fluke should post videos of her having sex was incredibly tasteless even for Limbaugh. That's an interesting bit of trivia about Bain owning Clear Channel. Talk about birds of a disgusting feather.

[nancy]

Becky -- Limbaugh can't be pushed off the air? Maybe, but...

Remember Don Imus? I'm not giving up on this one. Check the twitter land. The advertisers are bailing fast and furiously. One can hope. He done jumped that shark. This is the guy who arrived back through customs from the Dominican Republic with the Viagra pills, not his prescription, while already under legal oxy-watch orders, in his luggage. DR, where prostitution is a tourist draw. So let's watch closely.

How dare he impugn this young student.