As Politico correctly points out, there is a logic behind the Republicans’ intransigent behavior. What’s missing from their analysis, however, is any mention of the fact that the Republicans’ created this logic themselves. It is true that gerrymandered districts have created a situation where the vast majority of House members have more to fear from a primary than from a general election against the opposing party, which makes it extremely painful to compromise with the other side. But the problem has been exacerbated by the unhinged rhetoric the Republicans used to demonize the president and his policies.
On Friday, Jan. 29, 2010, the president warned about this during his appearance at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore, Maryland. In responding to a question from Tennessee backbencher Marsha Blackburn, the president made the following observations in the context of the ongoing health care debate:
Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.
And so I’m thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look, I mean, I’m just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.
So all I’m saying is, we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.
And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It’s not just on your side, by the way — it’s on our side, as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.
Setting aside the superfluous and inaccurate both-sides-do-it-equally coda of that statement, the truth of his argument has never been more clear. The Republicans have painted themselves into a box. We are at the point, now, that the Speaker of the House does not have the ability to bring his caucus along to make any compromises on the budget. And the simplest explanation for this is that bullshit is responsible. The Republicans have fed their base so much bullshit that they’ve crippled themselves. They are now literally buried in their own bullshit. Bullshit about taxes and revenues, bullshit about climate change and the environment, bullshit about guns and ammunition, bullshit about socialism, bullshit about the character of the president, bullshit about immigration and terrorism.
They did it to themselves. I’d like to lend them a hand and help them shovel their way out, but I don’t think they’ll let me help. One of the reasons that I think a deal is in the best interests of the country (depending on details, obviously) is that it is the best opportunity, and maybe the only opportunity, we have to dismantle this dungheap.
Actually, I do think there has been some of the “both sides do it” reality to what the President was talking about. Rhetoric from the left concerning the right is almost as demonizing as what flows in the opposite direction. The fact that there is a little more to back up the left’s rhetoric is, to some degree, irrelevant.
However, the consequences would be the same if the left had as organized and vocal a base as the TP is for the right. As it is, any Dem seen as willing to compromise with the GOP is seen as a traitor, up to and including the President.
That’s true in the abstract but the difference in degree is staggeringly different. I cannot imagine a successful primary challenge over Chained CPI, for example, but the Republicans could easily lose a primary challenge over the mildest of sins.
That is basically my point. There have been those attempts at primaries against the non-ideologically pure but they have mostly failed. But on the right, they have usually succeeded, sometimes to the regret of the GOP.
And as I said, when the left rhetorically demonizes the right, there is usually some substance to the claims. However, calling the GOP economic traitors, purely from a language standpoint, is not much different from the right labeling Dems as socialists.
In the context of the debt ceiling as hostage leading to a downgrade in our credit rating, I don’t think questioning patriotism is out of line at all. It’s more of an issue of whether they are self-consciously aware of the damage they do to the country than whether or not they are doing it.
I think we are basically in agreement. As I said, the criticism of the right from the left has a lot more to back it up. However, the general population does not necessarily see that, and the media definitely does not show the difference in the validity of the claims. Oh, and I think that if the left which tends to be most critical of the Dems taht aren’t pure enough had the funding avauilable to them that the TP has (although I don’t know how much longer that will be the case) you might see more attempts at primarying an incumbent.
I disagree. How often do you see establishment Democrats not back an incumbent? How about the GOP? The establishment Democrats, always, always back the incumbent. Even when the fool tries to run as a third party against the primary winner. The GOP establishment doesn’t always back the incumbent.
Except the key difference is that successful well funded primary challenges from the left would result in better lawmakers. It is almost always the case that a congresscritter can be improved by moving them to the left.
It’s more of an issue of whether they are self-consciously aware of the damage they do to the country than whether or not they are doing it.
Of course they are aware. You had fools like Louie Gohmert cheering on a default.
However, calling the GOP economic traitors, purely from a language standpoint, is not much different from the right labeling Dems as socialists.
Wrong!! Have you not been paying attention to the past 4 years?!?!?!?!? The GOP is/are economic terrorists. The U.S. had our credit rating downgraded. Need I have to remind you why?
Never said they weren’t. Notice I said from a language standpoint. See my response to Booman above.
So, we’re not supposed to call the GOP what they are? Why beat around the bush?
I don’t recall saying we weren’t. Personally, I wish it was done more. All I am saying is that it would be held up as evidence that both sides do it and a lot of people would therefore see it that way.
However, and I do think I have been misunderstood here, which may be my own fault for imprecise langauge use on my part, I am not stating that there is factual equivalency between the two sides. Nor am I saying that the left should avoid strong rhetoric just because the media will then say both sides do it.
What I am saying is that demonization occurs on both sides which does tend to make compromising with the other side more difficult. In our case, demonizing the right is more a case of telling it like it is.
There is a big gap in rhetoric. You can find some bloggers calling Bush II or Romney a fascist, but MSNBC doesn’t say it, and there’s not a substantial contingent of Congressmen saying it either. Plus, I do think it makes a difference that the Democratic rhetoric is basically all exaggeration or routine insults while the Republican rhetoric is frequently from fantasyland. Calling Romney a plutocrat is not the same as saying Obama is a Muslim Communist deep agent planning to destroy the Constitution. You don’t have to be detached from the world to believe the Dem rhetoric, just a little slanted (which, really, everybody is). To believe the Republican rhetoric you have to reject reality altogether, and that is a big problem.
In this case, the main point is that he’s talking to the House Republican caucus, and he just called them a bunch of hyperventilating fanatics. So he’s throwing them a bone, trying to get them to at least think about it.
He’s basically talking to a room full of children who aren’t mature enough to understand that they have severe emotional problems. He may be wasting his time trying to reach them, but that’s the context of the “bot sides” remark.
The GOP now has in place a generation who, thanks to Frank Luntz have their own language; thanks to Fox their own talking points; thanks to the evangelical machine the belief that god has blessed replacing his gift of intelligent curiosity and analysis with blind hatred.
Their bullshit is now their culture, their habit and their identity. Diminish their hatred of Obama and I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t even tie their shoelaces.
Yeah, still not seeing how a deal would change anything. But I guess we’re just not going to agree so no point in hashing it out. Our only chance is that they’re relegated to a regional rump of the South, or die.
I simply do not understand why the GOP’s paymaster overlord CEO class doesn’t step in and force them to cut a deal now. The Republican party is entirely designed to serve them – the 1% of the 1% – after all. That’s where all the distracting bullshit comes from in the first place.
Obviously that group of people is pretty deluded too (witness all the billionaires making fools of themselves over the previous election cycle), but you figure they’d be clear-eyed about limiting the damage to the economy from the fiscal cliff, debt default, etc.
That said, the “dungheap” will never be “dismantled” through Republican cooperation. The only way to get rid of it is through the forces of demographic change. Just as the only way we will ever get rid of the wingnut caucus in DC is to crush them in election after election until they are no more. This is a war of attrition.
Maybe they’ve lost control.
They weren’t happy about the debt ceiling fiasco.
That’s been my default explanation too, but it still feels unsatisfying for some reason.
they weren’t happy about the debt ceiling fiasco because a LOT of the $$$ the 1% has invested was downgraded.
Of the 16T in debt 9.5T is held by private investors. Guess who those investors are?
Tell me how punting a deal breaks the backs of the GOP. I’m confused about the narrative and about what’s going on at the moment.
It seems to me that the back of the GOP is not broken until they do irrevocable harm to their own constituents in a way that is clearly identifiable. The milk price increases from the failure to get a farm bill, the screams from doctors about the failure to pass a doc-fix, failing again to deal with the debt ceiling, and lots of spending cuts are going to affect Republican constituencies about as much as they do Democratic constituencies. It seems like the shock therapy is inevitable unless the President capitulates; the Republicans are that dug in.
Yes, I know that the kabuki says that the last offer to avert will be labeled the good guys.
It’s not magic or anything but it works like this:
Representative Armstrong Wingnut votes to raise taxes, stimulate the economy, and get rid of the debt ceiling hostage.
Challenger comes along and makes them defend their votes.
When half the GOP is defending themselves on those three issues, they can no longer persist in the mass delusion as a party.
And that will happen, how? Look at Willard. He tried to out-wingnut Little Ricky and the Newtster. What GOPer is going to buck the “party line” and try and get the party back to sanity? I don’t see one.
OT: I had forgotten this about Kent Conrad.
Explains a lot about why he had the hots for a deficit commission. What other bankers was he “friends of”?
Nice that Taibbi is following this case. As smart as Jay Brown, MBIA CEO, is, what they did was dumb. In addition to fueling the real estate bubble out of greed.
That’s why they’ve long been the best witnesses for their own prosecution, and denial plays such a prominent role in everything they say, do, or attempt.
It’s also imo, the proximate cause of the non-mysterious way in which the common “rightwing brain” operates generally. They’ve fed their minions turds for a long time now, and found themselves to be on the wrong side of history and the facts equally as long. While the rightwing masterminds have used turd dispensing to manipulate their minions and to keep them flowing into the voting booth, and more often than not, to vote against their own self interests, the turd-generated disgust that underlies their motivations of having done so is really just a projection of the disgust they should be having for and in themselves for being the gullible dupes they are and have ihn many cases, long been.
This is why it’s so difficult to get the common rightwinger off of their turd diet. Like with a cult, before the transition back to reality can commence or be successful, they first have to accept/acknowledge where they have been and what they’ve done for most of their political lives.
This imo, is the predictable consequence of what I argued/wrote about over a decade ago now during the lead up to the Iraq war. All of the projections, deflections, scapegoating, etc, used in defense of that illegal and immoral war, set them on the path to or the construction and occupation of the box you addressed here. It’s also why some 63% of them still think Iraq had wmd as of the last poll on the matter. Maintaining that belief is no doubt preferable to apologizing to all of us anti-war people over all the “hate the troops/love the terrorists” type talk, no? The same could be said about the efficacy of Bush’s tax cuts, and a host of other failures they fully supported outta him and their repub leaders.
“Failure is not a crime, failure to learn from failure is.”. That’s the ugly truth they are in denial of, and their history both distant and recent is replete with examples of their failures, and the box of turds they’ve manufactured will continue to grow bigger until their minions crash and burn on the wall of credulity in sufficient numbers to deprive them of the reigns of power. Their leaders know this, which is why they think they can still get away with trying to sell the “trickle down” garbage. To acknowledge it as a failure requires acknowledging having supported it as a failure already in the Bush years. And what happens to that “BHO’s debt and deficits” turd they been fertilizing the “rightwing brains” with for the last four years then?
What we’re really talking about here is the only successful “trickle down” scheme they’ve ever ran, and they will continue to rain down BS on their minions until reality sinks in and they have a sizable and collective “Network moment”.
This is why I’ve long thought that only something of the size and undeniability of global warming, and the “socialistic” policies it is liable to mandate, has a chance of drying up the cult culture medium sufficiently for the common rightwingnut to extricate themselves from their self-imposed and mired condition, and to make that long swim back through the Sea of Shame to the reality we occupy.
The “both sides do it” false equivalence is every bit as much of an obstruction to their awakening as the “liberal” media myth is to the death or disuse of the concept of “agreed upon facts” that use to serve as a guide to the best policy choices and to keep our political discourse more civil. That’s why they started on killing it back in the Saint Raygun days by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and buying up the media — the left’s biggest failure.
Their BSing began long ago, and getting all of their minions that have bought into it over the decades to recognize they’ve been BSed, is a daunting task indeed, because it puts them right in the middle of the same Sea of Shame their leaders have long swam in, and without a lifeboat or jacket.
That dems have been BSed a tad themselves is evidenced by their tolerance for the slow rightward shift in DC politics in this increasingly left of center country we live in.
According to the NY Times story on Obama’s last ditch proposal to the GOP, his deal includes keeping the Bush tax rates for everyone under $400k and that “The estate tax would stay at current levels.”
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????
In exchange for what?
Is he asking for so much that it’s “an offer they can’t accept?” Is he asking for enough goodies to make an extension worthwhile?
Are we talking about a permanent extension or temporary?
Plucking two items out of a proposal doesn’t tell us anything about it.
If we get the following out of it
Like it or not any deal, both before or after the fiscal cliff deadline, is going to have to include some comprise fro Ds and Rs. We won’t get everything we want so if that means raising the floor to when tax cuts aren’t kept that is fine by me.
Of course I was fine with the deal made in 2010 because it did the following
I posted this on my Facebook page, and one person objected to Booman’s use of the term bullshit. I responded: “Catherine, bullshit has actually been the subject of a scholarly treatment that makes the term bullshit the perfect descriptor for what the republicans have done to themselves and the country: “bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
So, since you outed your friend, what did Catherine say in response?