The Republican Party is at a crossroads, my friends. Deeply unpopular and bereft of power outside the South, the GOP needs to find a way back to the hearts and minds of the American people. They can do this many ways, of course: by moderating their views, by finding new and better ways to express themselves, or by simply being quiet and waiting for events to turn on the Democrats.
Or — and I’m just throwing this out there — they can behave like a bunch of seventh-graders, and hurl incoherent insults as loudly as possible, in the hopes that others will think that proves their mettle.
Sadly for the GOP and the country, this appears to be the Republican strategery for the coming years:
A member of the Republican
National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats
as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”
Ah, yes, calling the other party names. How juvenile. Truly, this is the way to prove to America that the real grown-ups are in the Republican party.
The sad thing is that America needs grown-ups in the Republican Party. I truly and absolutely believe that this country functions best with two functional parties. But this country does not have two functional parties right now; it barely has one. The Republicans are simply not up to the task of being thoughtful, intelligent leaders of our country; indeed, they seem to be permanently mired in a middle-school mentality, that if they just yell loudly and strut around, everyone will think they’re awesome.
Well, sorry, Republicans: the election of Barack Obama was a signal that America has tired of tough-talkin’ bullies. We actually want leaders who will engage with the issues of the day, who will take serious issues seriously. Who will listen to those he disagrees with, and who will treat his or her ideological opponents with respect.
So long as the Republicans stay stuck in a game of name-calling, petty politics, they will stay mired in the minority. At some point, wiser men and women will prevail, and the GOP will begin the hard but necessary task of updating itself for the 21st century. Until that day comes, the GOP will continue to stamp its foot like a schoolyard bully — and it will continue to get the respect that behavior calls for.
This. Is hilarious.
I think you have the phrases backwards in the blog post title. “каждого по способностям, каждому по потребностям” было бы лучше, мне кажется.
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to post this video. This seems like as good a place as any. Regulation Celebration Vacation
It’s frustrating because there are real reasons to criticize the Democrats, including the Congressional ones’ unwillingness to listen to Obama’s suggestions for trimming the budget a bit, and the Obama Administration for obfuscating what it knew and when about the AIG bonuses. The opposition party is supposed to keep the one in power a little more honest than it otherwise would be.
The Republicans have a weirdly post-modern viewpoint on political discourse: if we rename things, we change them! (See also freedom fries; if you stop calling them French, they’re no longer of Old European origin. Reality depends on what we call it, and we’re gonna call deep fried stuff we like “freedom,” and the party we don’t like “socialist.”)
That is very literally magical thinking, PG: change the name, change the thing. I think that’s supposed to be how Discworld works.
I truly and absolutely believe that this country functions best with two functional parties.
I would argue that multiple parties might (or might not) be even better. But one is essentially always a disaster. Consider Chicago.
Hershele,
Of which parts of Discworld are you thinking? Surely the Seamstresses aren’t really capable of tailoring work simply because they call themselves that; nor is Captain Carrot regarded as a real dwarf by the Deep Down ones even though he not only calls himself a dwarf but was raised as one.
You’re right, Discworld is better-run than that. I stand by that the GOP is using magical thinking.
Well, of course Discworld is better run than the modern GOP. Heck, even the Republicans I know are sadder about Pratchett’s diagnosis than they would be if the same happened to Karl Rove.
Any party that can turn the President’s mustard preference into a talking point has been reading the Onion too closely.
See also freedom fries; if you stop calling them French, they’re no longer of Old European origin.
…Actually, potatoes come from South America. And while there is apparently some kind of argument about where in Europe the habit of frying them comes from, I find it hard to believe that anywhere that has access to boiling fat and potatoes hasn’t tried combining them. Then again, I’m from Texas, where we believe you should try and fry anything at least once…
@ 10,
According to “The South American Table” by Maria Baez Kijac, the technique of deep-frying was brought by the conquistadors. South Americans prior to that may have been living a relatively heart-healthy lifestyle ;-)
South & Central Americans didn’t have a good source of fat for deep-frying like cattle.
Anyplace that can deep-fry will.
The sad thing is that America needs grown-ups in the Republican Party.
It could use them in the Democratic Party too. Interesting to see how the CIA is going after Speaker Pelosi. Of course, President Obama is already finding out that reality is at variance with some of his political rhetoric.
if we rename things, we change them!
That’s pretty much just taking a page from their opposition. Not that I endorse this particular effort, mind you. I don’t think it’ll go down well. “Socialism” is a dirty word in American politics, unlike it is in Europe. I think it’ll be treated like a violation of Godwin’s Law.
But one is essentially always a disaster. Consider Chicago.
Hear, hear. Party leaders do whatever they want here. Ask for (and usually get )bribes for appointment or nomination to any kind of office, hire friends and relatives to do-nothing jobs at inflated salaries, pass affirmative action laws and use them to hire mob-linked firms with minority front men (or women) who have no actual role in the companies while legitimately minority owned companies get bupkis, pay grossly inflated rents for government offices to real estate companies owned by political supporters, pass political offices from parent to child like Tudor royalty, swear they’ll lower taxes and cut staff before they’re elected and then hire a bunch of friends and relatives and then jack taxes up to record levels to pay for it all – hell, even get inexperienced state senators nominated for President.
What I cannot figure out is why people keep voting for the Democratic Party in Chicago – not because they’re Democrats, the Democratic Party national platform doesn’t mean sh!t in Chicago – but because of the waste and corruption, and the sheer arrogance and contempt they show towards the electorate.
I’ll tell you why I voted Democratic in Chicago. I worked as a reporter covering, among other things, local politics, out in the suburbs (Kane, not DuPage), where the Republicans had a total lock down on things. The types of people who were willing to run as Democrats, knowing with all certainty that they would lose, were often nutjobs I wouldn’t trust to take charge of a paper bag. Seeing these folks up close and personal, not just as a name on a ballot with a D after it, made me very concerned about the caliber of person running as a Republican for something like the Metropolitan Sanitation District. With Democrats, you get corruption and cronyism. You also get someone who has a slightly better chance of having basic competency and who will be assisted rather than thwarted in doing their job.
Don’t get me wrong. It was a deal with the devil, but a deal with the devil you know.
What’s interesting about the aldermen is that the best (as in, most likely to question and challenge stuff) aldermen were the very liberal Democrats. I think there was one Republican alderman from the Far Northwest Side, and he was more of a Daley guy than some of the Democrats.
RonF,
That’s pretty much just taking a page from their opposition.
Really? When have the modern Democrats renamed the Republicans?
I was talking concepts in general, not a political party in particular.
I like Brad DeLong’s snark on this
The types of people who were willing to run as Democrats, knowing with all certainty that they would lose, were often nutjobs I wouldn’t trust to take charge of a paper bag. Seeing these folks up close and personal, not just as a name on a ballot with a D after it, made me very concerned about the caliber of person running as a Republican for something like the Metropolitan Sanitation District.
Actually chingona, what you describe is something that I see all over the Chicago area, and something that also affects a large percentage of the House of Representatives overall. Certainly in Illinois, anyway, a given party dominates a given district and the opposition party only puts up token resistance, putting out candidates that most people view as non-serious.
With Democrats, you get corruption and cronyism. You also get someone who has a slightly better chance of having basic competency …
Corruption and cronyism is pretty much associated with whoever is in power in Illinois, regardless of party. This takes us back to the idea of the Combine, where in Illinois politics it’s far more important that you have connections with the power structure than it is what party you belong to or what political principles you believe in. And while there might be a better chance that the person involved will be relatively more competent than the candidate of the non-dominant party, a great many of them don’t meet an absolute minimal standard for competency.
This is why it’s always viewed as such a miracle in Illinois politics when someone gets into a position of authority and actually does their job and improves their offfice’s functionality. A few years ago Cook County got a new Clerk of the Circuit Courts. She found that all the paperwork in the office was pretty much being done on paper, by hand. She computerized the records and procedures and ended up providing far better and faster service to the public. People were astonished. Of course, it was fought because other public officials were afraid of losing jobs that they could hand out to their relatives and supporters. The concept that service to the taxpayers was the primary concern here was treated as hopelessly naive.
and who will be assisted rather than thwarted in doing their job.
Again, the primary concern around here is maintaining the Combine’s power. If a non-Combine person gets into an office or job the Combine will do everything they can to make sure that person can’t get their job done, regardless of the effect on the citizens. The relationship between government and citizens in Illinois is that the latter exist to support the former – the former is not there to serve the latter.
RonF,
I was talking concepts in general, not a political party in particular.
OK, what concepts have modern Democrats renamed?
каждому по потребностям, но от каждого по способностям
So what does the title mean, anyway?
As it stands in the title, “To each according to need, from each according to ability.” There’s also a “but” in there that isn’t necessary.
What’s wrong with Chicago?
Sure there’s 10% sales tax, but we’ve still got the Lake, international quality museums & restaurants, & Midwestern charm.
I agree with RonF’s point here, but I think there’s a significant typo:
RonF wrote (edit in capital mine)
Again, the primary concern
around hereIN UNITED STATES POLITICS is maintaining the Combine’s power. If a non-Combine person gets into an office or job the Combine will do everything they can to make sure that person can’t get their job done, regardless of the effect on the citizens. The relationship between government and citizens inIllinoisTHE UNITED STATES is that the latter exist to support the former – the former is not there to serve the latter.I love the hypocricy of calling the Democratic Party ‘Democratic Socialists’ when having an actual Socialist party is effectively banned in the US by the political machine that is in power. I wish we had a real government.
Consider that you voted Republican in the most recent presidential election, and that I’ve heard those very concerns cited (and often) by plenty of folks to explain why they did not.
Sometimes, party loyalty trumps concerns about corruption, arrogance, and contempt.
—Myca
I don’t understand either of these claims (that “having an actual Socialist party is effectively banned in the US by the political machine that is in power,” and that we don’t have “a real government”). Could you explain in more detail?
Where’s the “but” occur?
No typo, John. I meant exactly what I said. The collusion among members of the differing parties in Federal politics isn’t even marginally comparable to that in Illinois politics. The term “Combine” is one that I’ve been using for quite some time, and I was quite pleased to see John Kass use it (I make no personal claim to the term). It specifically refers to the parties in Illinois. Here in Illinois it’s not unheard of for members of one party to actually contribute to and support the election of members of the other party if they have the proper connections.
The most striking example that I have seen was in the election that resulted in then-State Sen. Barak Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate. The seat he won had been held by Sen. Fitzgerald, a Republican. Sen. Fitzgerald had actually done his duty by the citizens of Illinois by appointing effective U.S. Attorneys in all 3 Federal judicial districts in Illinois, but most especially in the District of Northern Illinois. The prosecutor that he appointed there (over the great objection of just about everybody in or dependent on elected office, as the man was not from Illinois or beholden to the Combine) has spent the last 7 years putting > 130 members of the Combine in jail, including a (Republican) Governor and has indicted his (Democratic) successor.
This was in the 2004 election, where the GOP was begging the Illinois GOP to do everything they could to hold on to the Illinois Senate seat that they held. This is where your analogy t0 the United States government falls apart. If your analogy was correct, the national GOP would have been encouraging the Illinois GOP to either keep him or to put someone electable in his stead. They did neither. They got rid of him and nominated Alan Keyes, who is even less amenable to the existing order than Sen. Fitzgerald was.
Consider that you voted Republican in the most recent presidential election, and that I’ve heard those very concerns cited (and often) by plenty of folks to explain why they did not. Sometimes, party loyalty trumps concerns about corruption, arrogance, and contempt.
Yes it does. But not on my part. First, I have no loyalty to either party. Second, I see little difference with regards to corruption and arrogance towards and contempt for the electorate between the two parties. Certainly not in Illinois, and hardly nationally either.
Ron — to my eye, но looks unnecessary.