However frustrated you may be that neither of the two institutional American political parties perfectly or even remotely reflects your values, you should at least understand that they are institutional. By this I mean that they run our political institutions, from Congress to the various agencies of the Federal Government to governors’ mansions, down to the state legislatures and local county executive offices. If they do well then our institutions do well. If they are bad at their jobs, then our institutions will not perform properly and the public and the nation will suffer.
The same is true of our media, which form a vital institution in our society. The media in some sense serve our institutions because they are a cog in the machine, but they serve it by critiquing it and holding it to account.
The Republican Party just doesn’t embrace its role in this process, and this can seen in no more complicated a way than that they spend most of their energy tearing down the very institutions they serve and rely upon to keep things honest. An institutional party that does all it can to win control of the federal government should not continually denigrate the effectiveness and legitimacy of the federal government. A party that wants a healthy established order, should not constantly make unwarranted and exaggerated accusations of media bias.
Taken as a whole, the Republican Party has, ever since its takeover by the conservative movement, done more than any foreign ideologues can ever hope to do to erode faith in the goodness of the American establishment. They’ve done this partly by being very bad at governing, but my focus here is on their messaging. During much of the latter Bush Era, the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and they had a friendly Supreme Court. They ought to have been able to argue that under their leadership the federal government was finally functioning as it should. But, even if this had been plausible based on their record, they could never have done it because their whole machine is geared to deride the tyrannical inefficiency of government. What they did instead was to blame their own failures on the very institutions they controlled, and on the media for never giving them a fair shake.
The result of their messaging, which has been carried out for decades now, both when holding power and when in the minority, was that their followers lost faith in every aspect of our institutions. An institutional party destroyed faith in itself.
Again, part of this is based on the public’s unhappiness with their performance, either because the promised results never came or because what the Republican base thought they wanted resulted in a hollowing out of the middle class. But part of it is that we’ve had this cancer inside the system that feeds on spreading cynicism about the system.
All you have to do is consider Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. He’s the most powerful man outside of the White House in Washington DC, and he runs a party that is dedicated to arguing that he does a terrible job at everything. Whether he does a good job or a bad job, and no matter from whose perspective you try to answer that question, the message has to continue that the federal government screws up everything it touches.
There is no way for Ryan to succeed, (or to get any credit for succeeding, anyway). During the Obama Era, Ryan’s party has been demanding that the government be shut down, that it not pay its bills on time, that it have all its powers defanged. The GOP raises expectations that their party leaders can do things that they cannot actually do, but all of these things are about taking a club to the very institutions that the Republican Party controls or seeks to control.
To be sure, Trumpism is a populist revolt on trade and immigration and failure to deliver on promises, and part of the GOP’s current problems are that the interests of their elites have simply diverged from the interests of their rank-and-file. But that’s only part of their problem. They’ve been an institutional anti-institutional party for so long that the chickens finally came home to roost. They are incapable of running our institutions and don’t have the legitimacy (even among their own supporters) to run organizations that they’ve successfully delegitimized in the eyes of much of the public.
There’s even fallout on the left, because most people do not understand that the GOP has the power through intransigence and obstruction to make good institutions fail. During the first two years of Obama’s presidency, Congress was a hive of action and productivity, with important and useful hearings occurring with such frequency that it was hard to keep up on CSPAN. During the last six years, CSPAN might as well not have not existed because there was nothing of any consequence or benefit to the nation occurring in Congress. A million times, voices on the left have criticized the president and the Democrats with the same disillusioned cries of broken promises or critiques of half-measures and compromise that we hear so routinely from the right. In both cases, not enough credit is given to the opposing party for the having the capacity to say ‘no.’
There will always be genuine gridlock in a divided government on some issues where fundamental issues are at play, but it’s only when one institutional party takes the position that the institution it serves is rotten and evil that it becomes impossible to compromise on anything. With the Republicans, it’s grown so ridiculous that they can’t even agree with themselves on how to fund the government, let alone make some kind of deal with the opposition that can stick.
This is why Boehner and Cantor eventually had to go, because they could only fund the government by using Democratic votes, and the Democrats weren’t willing to give those votes endlessly without having a say in how the money is spent.
So, when people talk about Trumpism being here to stay regardless of the outcome of the election, they’re really missing the source of the problem.
Our institutions are not fatally flawed. They are good institutions that functioned well in the past and served as a model for others. But the public has lost faith in them, including the media, because the Republicans wanted them to lose faith in them. The public has lost faith in them because the Republicans have run these institutions so poorly, including their media organs.
Ultimately, you can be anti-establishment and you can be as cynical as is warranted, but we’ll always have institutions that we want to work, and work well. If you throw out one group of insiders, it won’t be two weeks before the newcomers are insiders, too, working on the same problems and overseeing the same institutions. We need our Establishment, both governmental and media, to be respectable so they can earn our respect. That doesn’t mean that you look the other way when they fail. It means that you don’t make it central to your institutional party’s ideology that our whole system is rotten, regardless of its performance at any given time.
We’ll always have elites. We’ll always have DC. But we don’t need a party that’s invested in their failure.
Too many veto points. Too much forced compromise. A binary slant.
You don’t have to install a Jim Watts at interior to make the institutions fail. In fact, he draws too much attention to events.
Install a Salazar, who quietly makes sure business is served.
But the major dysfunction in our agencies is caused by the out of power party and not the industry/agency/DC pols revolving door…
Almost ALL major cities have been Dem for decades. What is their excuse? In what shape is their infrastructure, including HUMAN?
Cities are still creatures of the states in which they exist, and only a segment of interdependent regions, and in many cases both the wider region and the state are GOP controlled. As the regions spread, and population along with it, cities were left with less control (states set the rules and controlled the purse strings) and more responsibility. My city is an example – poor schools, in a region with many blue ribbon districts surrounding, saw declines in both the city tax base and state support, and a student population where families had to dedicate more resources to just living. The city itself puts more resources into health for poor citizens, police protection and other basic services. Over a decade ago, the state took over school management, and other than imposing charters (with decidedly mixed results but with a massive shift of funding away from city schools) the schools remain troubled. Public transit, which is carrying many more passengers, is disproportionately controlled by suburbs, which developed around the automobile. I could go on. Yes, city pols aren’t angels or geniouses, but they have much less control than imagined, and are still at the mercy of a legislature which both sees cities as dens of evil and money sinks (and, per Trump, home of electoral theft). Ironically, this city is Philadelphia, which was home to the DNC (and where the rights of protestors were protected and violence was non-existent) and is continuing to receive accolades as a world class city and destination.
My point – cities are not these isolated creatures of their own making. They are part of a bigger creature which has been significantly controlled by the GOP, which has gerrymandered a majority of house seats way out of proportion to the population of the state, passed ALEC developed laws which do not benefit the citizens, and unwilling to invest in ways which benefits all citizens. Has the Democratic Party done its job o the extent it should? Hardly. But Booman’s right, it’s the GOP that has been playing this game and then attempting to deflect the blame to “those people” – and is now consuming itself as its true believers turn on the master.
I largely agree. My question is simply, ‘Does it makes sense to see the Republican Party of the last, oh, 20 years, as primarily part of a political institution? Or is that like saying that the Zombie Virus is a ‘failure’ in terms of culinary diversity because now everyone just wants to eat brainz?
First, many cities in the Northeast and Midwest are in better shape today than they’ve been in for several decades. Violent crime rates are half what they were 25 years ago. Populations are increasing, not decreasing. This generation of public school students is better educated than previous generations were.
And that’s all true despite city governments having extraordinarily limited powers compared with state governments.
I was looking into your assertions and I came across this…The New Great Migration (https:/nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/07/19/new-great-migration)
Also, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/15/census-many-african-americans-leaving-northern-cities/
Cost of housing? Lack of jobs, even in the gig economy?
Unhappy with quality of life–police and schools? Why would any minority stay in Missouri?
Happening in liberal hubs in the West, too. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0501-renn-reverse-great-migration-20160501-story.html
Folks who know the South and the Southwest better should feel free to jump in here, but isn’t part of the reason for that reverse migration that the quality of life in cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, etc., has improved too?
Rents seem to be the biggie. In regulated enclaves, additional housing is harder to get built. In anything-goes South, what is zoning??? So more housing gets built and rents are lower.
The end of Jim Crow might play a factor….
The quality of jobs for professional and technical workers and the presence of national and international corporations who are serious about not discriminating have brought many folks in through transfer and that catalyzed their friends, family, and co-workers to seek jobs here, especially during the 1990s Clinton boom years.
The cities that you mentioned until recently had a consensus to work to end segregation and discrimination. That has seen some reversal with the underfunding of public schools, the growth of charter and private schools, and the disastrous effects of the drive to teach-to-the-test of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. That educational “reform” seems to be now receding and teachers are beginning to think about teaching again. And that has brought some improvement, at least in Durham in some supposedly “troubled” schools.
Most importantly the business support and netowrking capabilities of the black business community have brought some degree of prosperity and the election of black elected officials has spread the focus of the good ole boys in downtown business over a desegregated local government institution.
In short there are opportunities to succeed (until 2008 but returning now) and often family ties to people in the local area who never were in the first great migration that make coming South a positive experience.
For LGBT blacks, the Southern cities have become more tolerant as well even if the suburban and rural preachers still hold forth. Tolerant congregations for interacial gays exist in these cities as to tolerant black congregations even if the surrounding suburban and rural areas can be intolerant.
Housing desegregation by race was not as much a problem in the South, which had de jure segregation by institutions, as in the white flight North. Almost all of the shotgun shacks of sixty years ago have been replaced either with housing projects or with newer small houses. Those small houses over 50 years have been constantly improved as the owners improved their incomes and now are segregated enclaves of historically black housing in an increasingly diverse city. Stereotyping here as elsewhere dies hard.
Despite the fact, that white flight has become a Southern reality as well, there are numerous racially desegregated neighborhoods in which whites did not flee but worked with their new neighbors and other neighborhoods of white purchases. Some of the latter have led to desegregated gentrification. Others have resisted gentrification.
One of my black neighbors was transferred here by the bank he worked for. Another is a retired schoolteacher who came back from New Jersey to retire among her sisters and brothers. Others of my black neighbors are locally born and have found jobs as real estate agents, accountants, or in the health care insurance or medical systems. Or are double and triple jobbing in fast food or awful hours at local hospitals or cleaning offices.
This neighborhood has Asian-Americans, Latinos, and Arab Americans, which helps maintain its diversity. There are numerous similar neighborhoods scattered across Southern cities that have universities and globalized corporations.
The quality of life in select cities has improved even as smaller cities and small towns are being stripped of resources by corporations and deprived of resources by government.
In addition there are an increasing number of retirement homes that attract residents from out-of-state.
For those without family ties, however, the reverse migration has a class structure. Only the more affluent blacks are able to pick up and move to a equal or better quality of life; the cost differential from where they were to here (especially if they were on the West Coast) can be substantial. Even after the housing crisis knocked down property values. Those with substantial equity elsewhere have bought for cash and banked the difference. That of course has begun to inflate housing prices here.
Anyone from other Southern or Southwestern places, chime in.
BTW, in 2012, this county went over 70% for Obama.
Thanks. Very helpful.
I believe this reverse African American migration to the South is part of an overall in-migration that is slowly transforming certain parts of the south (think Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia). The in-migration includes Northern whites as well as Latinos. Note that the reddest of the red states are those without industries attracting in-migration.
Excuse my ignorance, but I’m not sure what your first question is. Could you rephrase it?
Boo is suggesting that the Republican Party is a failure as an institution of American political governance. But is the Republican Party a failure at governing, or a success at some other goal?
I don’t see ‘an institutional party that does all it can to win control of the federal government.’ It does very little to win control of the federal government. So while from the outside, we might think the Republican Party is a failure at performing its proper role in the political institution, I wonder if we’re not misunderstanding how it sees it’s ‘proper role.’
It’s like the Tsarists criticizing the Mensheviks for not supporting WWI enthusiastically enough. If you do not support Mother Russia, our institutions will not perform properly and the public and the nation will suffer.
Thanks for clarifying.
Your question made me think the other goal is to serve another constituent, namely the wealthy and business interests. Those two can be seen as in opposition to usual government, and in favor of promoting private interests and business and ensuring its endurance. Hence, we hear government cannot do anything right. There are no end to the lies that can be used to advance that agenda.
Great analysis and discussion.
My ruder, shorter version is this: the GOP says government is fucked up, then when it gains power, it intentionally fucks things up, then says to the public, “See? Didn’t we tell you government is fucked up?”. This the phenomenon of the Tea Partiers at public meetings yelling for Uncle Sam to keep his hands off Medicare.
just said), it’s been continuously infuriating for a very long time now to watch Republicans hamstring effective government at every opportunity, then dishonestly and hypocritically campaign on how ineffectual/dysfunctional “Big Government” is!
Sorta related: I was intrigued to hear (on NPR somewhere, I think) about the new initiative to de-privatize the federal prison system. Didn’t listen super-attentively, but the gist I took away included that this was based on an Inspector General’s investigation that found that, across a range of indicators (e.g., cost, training, staffing levels, performance standards, violations of prisoner rights, etc.), private prisons under contract to feds were routinely worse.
Privatization mania was, of course, one of the many ways in which rightwingers sought to both shrink and hamstring government.
Given how directly this flies in the face of the fervently held wingnut dogma (which in turn flies in the face of Reality) that private enterprise always and automatically does everything better, including more cheaply, I’ve been surprised that I haven’t heard of an immediate wingnut uproar in protest of this development. (Granted, that may just mean I haven’t gone looking in the appropriate precincts of the fever swamps of Reality-Denial. In fact, I strongly suspect I’d find it if I went looking there. But no thanks, I’ll pass.)
Actually the intrepid press finally got some action after yrs of their own whistle blowers being ignored. Will be phased out over a 5 yr period, if someone does not change their mind.
Saw it in the FRENCH press a few days ago.
This INCLUDES teh ICE prisoners, thank heavens. That is where the worst situations were reported, imo.
http://rollingout.com/2016/08/19/justice-department-stop-using-private-prisons/
I was wrong. Jeebus. All hat, no cattle. More details emerge…
The new policy affects a relatively small portion of the federal prison population, roughly 22,000 of 193,000 prisoners.
The policy shift has no bearing on the private operation of immigrant detention facilities. As of December, 62 percent of the 34,000 beds for people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are in privately-run facilities. They are under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Justice.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-private-prison-phase-o
ut#.h77NGgzDN
WaPo — a blowout/coronation doesn’t sell newspapers so, Trump was very smart to go to Louisiana. (But he still can’t quite help himself.)
So much wrong with this reporting, but that’s how journalists roll these days. Good to see that Landrieu remains a hack/flack politician. However, Obama did screw the pooch on this one, and I don’t mean by not calling up AF-1 to set in down in the midst of a disaster for a photo-op. And why the hell is Biden (along with his whole family) on a foreign tour while the boss is on vacation?
Oh gawd. This will pass so quickly, like all the other horrible “optical” mistakes Obama’s made, we won’t be discussing it in a few weeks.
May I presume that no critical thought passed through your brain or critical words spewed from your lips or fingertips about GWB’s behavior in the week following the Katrina disaster? If not, then you’re a hypocrite.
If your reading comprehension is up to par, you would have got it that my criticism of the WaPo report included praising Trump’s stunt. Disaster zones are not the time and place for big names to show up for photo-ops of them handing out water bottles.
The problem with our government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was not the timeliness of W. Bush’s trip to personally to survey the damage in the storm region. The problem was the terrible response of FEMA during the W. Bush Administriation.
Obama’s FEMA has performed much better.
The problem was Bush and Bobby Jindal were setting up a sitting Democratic governor for an electoral defeat by sandbagging aid in a crisis.
And creating the diaspora of African-Americans in New Orleans and elsewhere in the Gulf region by refusing to finance the rebuilding of housing in the communities where they lived, thus making it even more difficult for liberal Democrats to be elected to office in Louisiana.
Don’t forget the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 — completely manufactured, and zero intervention/help/enforcement of existing laws by the Federal gov’t. It resulted in the recall of a D governor, to be replaced by Arnold.
Sandbagging (can’t think of a better word right now – not trying to be cute) to inflict political damage on opponents, regardless of the actual damage done to real people, is an SOP for the GOP.
So true. As a Californian, that episode was beyond outrageous. But, now that we’ve pointed out another example of real Republican corrupt governance, let’s get back to focusing on how awful sellout neoliberal Democrats are because they couldn’t pass Medicare for all when they controlled Congress.
I don’t have time, I’m working on another post about Clinton’s emails and how she lied about a previous Secretary of State………
now let me find that link to the Judicial Watch findings. So informative!
.
Side story is investigative work by Mother Jones, where a reporter went under cover as a guard to observe private security conditions. A point that gets lost in the larger picture – he took a job paying about $9 an hour as a prison guard, not exactly a low responsibility position. This is how the for-profits cut costs, and when you abuse staff by paying poverty wages… The wingnuts may not be saying much, but stocks of these fabulous companies fell off the cliff. Shareholders see the beginning of the end of this gravy train.
Hmm, will California be the last to give them up? https://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-california-s-prison-guards-subvert-democ
racy#.w5MAHacO3
the issue that article talks about is completely different than what jdkahler refers to.
The CA prison guards union is indeed a real problem, but they are employed by the state and work in state prisons and are very well paid. And they hate private prisons.
I also figured that privatized prisons also gave more cover for brutality. Might be a bogus idea, don’t really know.
of it. From mino’s link:
Be interesting when the TiSA trade deal gets passed and political parties become even less than stage props.
Won’t have to worry about institutions at that point, they will be toothless.
With an additional, yet essential part: doing this while managing to shift as much public resources as possible to private entities which have as their only fiduciary responsibility being to their shareholders. The part of Benghazi, to point to only one example, is that there’s no discussion that the two security workers killer were employees of a private security firm, which was paid by the government, but they were not ultimately accountable to the government but to their own, for profit bureaucracy. Seeing this with privatized prisons and so many other examples driven by GOP and ALEC driven laws. Not only does the GOP rail against government, it turns tax dollars over to private entities, entities which are directly and indirectly “proving” government can’t do anything right.
In this arena, both-siderism is true. It was at the core of Clinton’s “reinventing government,” and figures prominently in all the government changes from charter schools to the ACA.
Politico — As the Saudis Covered Up Abuses in Yemen, America Stood By
Another odd US application of R2P.
Seems to be one thing government handles well, the MIC. I read recently some “experts” believe we need to expand our military to defend us better. You know we haven’t been winning much of late, like fifty years or so. But to do that we need to get our debt and interest under control and that means we should address entitlements (read cut them).
I don’t follow your statement about charter schools, Marie3. I don’t object to them on principle but in practice I think they rarely work out well, and they have definitely become a tool in the union busting toolbag. But I don’t think they were designed to fail. Is that your claim?
The GOP has changed over the years into a subculture. Thus they have their own perception of reality. This is why they have their own forms of media that support their chosen life style.
Unfortunately the GOP has decided that the Federal Government and the Constitution are something to be despised and destroyed. They no longer hide their intent to take down the Federal Government. How ironic that we are fighting terrorist organizations from other countries. While allowing the GOP to practice various forms of terrorism here. Their numerous acts against Government of all kinds has done more harm to the country then any outside terrorist group and cost numerous citizens deaths.
Perhaps it’s time to just stop expecting goverment to do anything except manage the existing bureaucracy. I’d like it to stop this endless campaign of murder and mayhem all over the world. I’d like our local goverments to stop harassing and extorting the poor with fines (Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc.)
Is that really too much to ask? Let’s stop with these promises of prosperity that never come to pass and just have our government stop screwing us. We have to start somewhere.
Thanks for your question. I think the answer is both yes and no.
Yes—it’s too much to ask as long as one of our major political parties is dedicated to making government (and other public institutions) fail.
No—it’s not too much to ask; in fact, it’s not enough to ask. Because unless our parties and government and other institutions are asked not only to “manage the existing bureaucracy” but also to keep up with our ever changing world, they’ll continue to fail.
Institutions are fundamentally stable social relationships that function to get their purposes done more effectively and more efficiently that ad hoc social relationships. All of those anti-establishment parties and organizations that have been around for a while also are institutions in that respect. The Democratic and Republican parties are institutions in that respect.
And all institutions have their self-interests as institutions in addition to their purpose. One sees this most graphically in churches whose sole activities as institutions are meeting weekly to take up the offering and listening to a sales pitch from a preacher who asks for nothing more than his salary, his parsonage and the church building he is preaching in.
The conservative takeover of the Republican Party was an anti-Communist movement that used what they thought were winning Communist (always with a capital C) tactics because of the anxiety that the Communists were winning by subverting American citizens. A lot of the existing Republican politicians were ambitious kids who saw this movement within the Republican Party as a way up in areas in which the Democratic Party had been around so long that it was mostly old men and there was no Republican Party at all. The also were doctors against Medicare (socialized Communist medicine), small businessmen against taxes and regulation (socialized Communist confiscation and meddling), and outright or polite bigots (socialized Communist meddling with “our Negroes”). Nixon tested the waters in 1946. McCarthy burned the house to the ground. Buckley gave it an erudite face. Goldwater gave it the legitimacy of public office. And on their first outing they failed miserably but caught the attention of those who shared their anxieties that conflated Communism, labor unions, civil rights, the scientific attack on Christianity, and the decline of the West (to resurrect Oswald Spengler’s notion).
And then Nixon won and woke up the moneybags and the wanna-be moneybags and ambitious lawyers like Lewis Powell and frustrated media people who were their fellow travelers. There were no lefty media people by the Nixon administration because McCarthyism purged them, and they remain purged. But Lewis Powell how to take over the cultural institutions of American just like conservatives feared the Communists would have done in the late 1940s if they hadn’t stopped them.
In the process, the government institution of the United States of America got to be defined as inherently socialist and on its way to Communism. It was in that sense, not any practical sense, that Reagan said that the government is the problem not the solution and let in the termites.
Let’s be sure to understand that the purpose of the Republican party after the conservative movement took it over was the complete and utter destruction of the left. And for the conservative movement, the left started at the right wing of the Democratic Party and they themselves were the furthest left wing to be ever of the Republican Party. And so the purge within the party began and moved forward because ambitious candidates could always run in primaries by calling out incumbents as too far to the left, or as Christian values infused their “positive” message, lacking home state values. The last cycle of that purge process produced the Freedom Party. This cycle produced Trump and his co-dependent followers.
At each stage the socialist Communist government became less legitimate to support; it’s only 25 years or so since Grover Norquist set up the no-new-taxes pledge and promised to reduce government to the size to drown it in a bathtub.
What ever happened to that with the Republican Party?
The only appropriation that Republicans will vote for willingly is for more military and more police.
Think about that.
The only thing that Republicans add money to the budget for is military, police, and surveillance.
The rest of the agencies and services of government, they cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And then negotiate on those cuts by obstruction.
And they got the Democrats so buffaloed by accusing them back in their home districts (even if Democrats win) of working for a socialist Communist institution called in scare quotes and capital letters, “The Government” or “The Gub’mint”.
And so the voters delegitimized the very institutional control that held through the ballot and elected politicians who were more committed to their donors than to their voters. Over a few decades depending on which state you are in the vicious cycle repeated itself to the point the “everybody knows” that some Congressional Districts or some states are going to vote forever for their well-compromised incumbent who also happens to be one of the obstructionists or one of the “Vichy Dems”. That is how the termites worked.
I’m still a progressive democrat, not a full-fledged lefty; ask AG about that. My online conversations in comments with those who are full-fledged lefties of the “don’t even mess around with third party” variety are not interested in tearing down institutions that they perceive are already collapsing from termite damage. They are trying to figure out how to do disaster relief after the collapse.
Their thinking at this point is this. If Republicans do collapse the government and Democrats are indeed helpless to prevent it, everybody indeed is on their own in the same sense they were after the German tribes no longer were subject to Roman imperial rule. Rome fell primarily because the rich would not pay taxes to keep up the legions, Romans allowed foreign troops and mercenaries in to fill out the legions, and the general social contract fell apart even as the institutions of the Church were establishing themselves. And the scale interaction and trade also collapse to the very local for order, economy, and culture. Why not build those local institutions now and ignore national politics until the collapse of the globalist system.
The lefty whipping boy of the established parties is slowly disappearing in fact. But the flogging continue.
Back to the Republicans and the results of 52 years (or is it 70 years) of movement conservatism.
What is the largest most powerful institution in American society as a result of conservative government action? The US military, intelligence, homeland security, and criminal justice institutions and their supplying contractors. The actual socialist Communist institutions that so inspired conservative fear of the Soviet Union and Communism in John Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason.
And that is the single and only major accomplishment of the Republican Party under movemental conservative rule in all the times they have held power. Because of the word, “Treason”.
It is nice that Nixon tried co-opting the environmental movement (with Democratic support) or that W turned Medicare Part D prescriptions over to shady insurers and a private and ever expensive solution. But all of that was aimed at private looting of public funds and writing off private liabilities through subsidies or non-performance; just look at what happened to the Superfund.
Movement conservatism has failed, failed, failed, failed, failed. Why can’t Democrats say that publicly and loud?
The elites have destroyed their own seed corn. The elites have pissed in their own soup. The elites have created the contradiction of capitalism and will not let the government unwind it again as was done in the New Deal.
The elites are destroying themselves while enjoying what will be a rapidly disappearing lifestyle of either (1) overconsumption or (2) oversaving of cash and assets.
The elites don’t realize it. But they need us non-elites on our own terms more than ever.
Trump is just another slave catcher, this time trying to round up all the white indentured servants for their permanent servitude.
Because that’s what the elites want him to do. Otherwise they would stop him as surely as they slowed down Bernie Sanders.
I suppose we are fortunate to have a few woke elites on Hillary Clinton’s side. It is the ones who aren’t woke that are flocking to her side that worry me. As much as the NRA and its support of Trump worries me.
There are two ways to burn down this house.
It is up to the elites to show that finally they grasp what the movemental conservatives have done in their interest and how dangerous it is for the future.
We progressive democrats are waiting to see if the promise of the Constitution can continue; we dearly hope so.
So many good statements in your post…
Reagan demonized the government and if we ever pull out of the nose-dive he started, he should forever be known as the “worst American ever”.
“Why not build those local institutions now and ignore national politics until the collapse of the globalist system.” – In a way California has done this.
“Movement conservatism has failed, failed, failed, failed, failed. Why can’t Democrats say that publicly and loud?” – Good question. Although it would not affect the “true” conservatives as they live in their own reality, I suspect there are enough suffering people that may finally be waking up. (Yes, I’m talking about you Kansas).
Excellent analysis. It boils down to this: for the Republicans, the common good (the traditional purpose of government) = communism. All public property and institutions must be returned to private hands ( = pillaging of the commons). The elites profit from this — until they realize that the country is close to anarchy, and nothing can be done under anarchy. There are no tools left to govern with.
You got it, except for the part about their learning their tactics from Stalin’s political operation. Propaganda, political minders in civil service agencies, control of the media, rigged elections, guilt tripping, gaslighting, political prisons, surveillance services, expanding the military and deep state all at the expense of the economy and the people, co-opting oligarchs into prominent roles, repetitive purges based on ideological purity, secret prisons, cults of personality…
At this point what of what scared John Stormer have they not done?
OK, duly noted. These days they’ve moved on to Saul Alinsky, it would seem.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radical
s_against_liberals
http://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/right-loves-to-hate-imitate-alinsky-034751
I thought that was what the Tea Party was originally about — using Saul Alinsky tactics against a guy they accused of being a Saul Alinsky acolyte.
They don’t realize that them using Saul Alinsky tactics for their stated agenda comes to the same grief as them using Stalinist tactics. It comes out looking like the old Red Shirt campaigns of yore.
Means and ends still are interconnected enough to matter.
I was just reflecting yet again on the irony of my neighbor R—-, a great guy and a great neighbor, who was a Democrat when I met him 25 years ago and is now one of those independents who seems always to vote GOP. He now constantly talks about how “everyone” hates the US government.
R—– went to work for the Internal Revenue Service about 8 years ago.
Go figure.
There are counterparts of R—- in this area who work as scientists for the EPA.
Why does that not surprise me, with EPA scientists upset enough over fracking lies that they went public over their bosses’s heads?
I would have subscribed to this institutional argument readily if I hadn’t already come to see the political mechanism as fundamentally a two-party duopoly which primarily serves the elite first and only then wrangles over the size and shape of crumbs left for others. The ideological contest between the two parties might even be genuine in that some elites promote sharing a modicum of wealth and social justice, if only for the preservation of the status quo, while others don’t see even that necessity or care.
Your premise regarding Republican destructiveness is sound, of course, and it is interesting to note that 20th century fascism inevitably held similar contempt for the institutions of social democracy and a parallel doctrine of using its pluralism and tolerance as a lever to pry it open, sabotage and corrupt it. That our Republicans adopted this approach; hobbling our institutions, misinforming the public and then denouncing the outcomes doesn’t entirely overshadow the culpability of other political actors and the media in also enabling this strategy through opportunism, narcissism or greed.
Sadly, our recent infatuation with promoting prosperity over integrity rather invites such abuse. The recent Ukrainian influence scandal has puzzled me, how did Manafort not know he would be undone by public exposure of his intimate relationship with a despot and the deceptively named European Centre for a Modern Ukraine? The answer is simple, it was business as usual for all concerned, from both parties. There is good money to be made attempting to influence congressional and institutional decision makers for the sake of covert actors whose motives directly oppose government policy and the people’s best interest; the more insidious, naturally, reaping the greater profit.
I don’t have the opportunity right now to elaborate the point but I would be happy to post a diary soon connecting the dots of this particular case if it would be of interest to those here, it is all on the public record. The origins of the Centre, the aspirations of its financiers, the activities of Manafort, Gates, Davis, the Podesta Group and Mercury’s Vin Weber are all traced and known since 2012 at the outset of the contract.
The pre-emptive and misdirecting statement of yesterday from the Podesta Group is a perfect example of the arrogance of those who act against our interests for profit and with apparent impunity.
In addition to the insularity of media attention in DC, the collaboration in “good money to be made attempting to influence congressional and institutional decision makers for the sake of covert actors whose motives directly oppose government policy and the people’s best interest; the more insidious, naturally, reaping the greater profit.” is also why we look at DC a The Village, an insulated world all unto itself.
And so does the Republican base. Politicians who really did break out of that Village mindset might actually get broad public support. Trump only fakes at making that break, and soon some people will catch on to that. A smart campaign might use that as a can opener.
” . . . promoting prosperity over integrity . . .” — well said.
That attitude is even plain to see in how our government enforces the law — when a company breaks the law, there is no real punishment. Instead, the Feds just make sure they get their “cut” from the deal. Our federal government looks more and more like a well-run Mafia organization.
The incentives of civil forfeiture basically make the respective agencies silent partners of the cartels.
Affluent and Black, and
Still Trapped by Segregation
Why well-off black families end up living in poorer areas
than white families with similar or even lower incomes.
By JOHN ELIGON and ROBERT GEBELOFFAUG. 20, 2016
MILWAUKEE — Their daughter was sick and they needed family around to help care for her, so JoAnne and Maanaan Sabir took an unexpected detour.
They had spent years blowing past mileposts: earning advanced degrees and six-figure incomes, buying a 2,500-square-foot Victorian with hardwood floors. Yet here they were, both 37, moving to a corner of town pocked by empty lots, cramming into an apartment above Ms. Sabir’s mother, in the very duplex that Ms. Sabir’s grandparents had bought six decades earlier.
Their new dwelling was in a part of the Lindsay Heights neighborhood where more than one in three families lives in poverty; gunshots were too often a part of the nighttime soundtrack. They planned to leave once their daughter, Ameera, was healthy.
But then, reminding them of why they feel at home in communities like this one, their new neighbors started frequently checking on Ameera: Is she doing O.K.? And on their son, Taj: When’s his next basketball game? Mr. Sabir’s car stalled in the middle of the street one night, and it was the young men too often stereotyped as suspicious who helped him push it home. So many welcoming black faces like their own, they thought.
“It felt like that’s where we should be,” Ms. Sabir said.
Now, two years later, Ameera, 14, is healthy. And the Sabirs have not left. They have, in fact, only strengthened their resolve to stay after a fatal police shooting last weekend led to fiery unrest that was also fueled by frustrations over race and segregation. Rooted where they are, the Sabirs point to a broad yet little explored fact of American segregation: Affluent black families, freed from the restrictions of low income, often end up living in poor and segregated communities anyway.
It is a national phenomenon challenging the popular assumption that segregation is more about class than about race, that when black families earn more money, some ideal of post-racial integration will inevitably be reached.
In fact, a New York Times analysis of 2014 census figures shows that income alone cannot explain, nor would it likely end, the segregation that has defined American cities and suburbs for generations.
The choices that black families make today are inevitably constrained by a legacy of racism that prevented their ancestors from buying quality housing and then passing down wealth that might have allowed today’s generation to move into more stable communities. And even when black households try to cross color boundaries, they are not always met with open arms: Studies have shown that white people prefer to live in communities where there are fewer black people, regardless of their income.
The result: Nationally, black and white families of similar incomes still live in separate worlds.
In many of America’s largest metropolitan areas, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, black families making $100,000 or more are more likely to live in poorer neighborhoods than even white households making less than $25,000. This is particularly true in areas with a long history of residential segregation, like metropolitan Milwaukee.
Yes indeed. I saw that in Chicago four years ago, even as the mayor’s program of gentrification sought to evict less affluent people from the Logan Square neighborhood and the Uptown community fought to preserve its diversity
This is having the effect of stabilizing all communities and rewarding bigots for obstruction and harassment.
I can understand why after 50 years, black families are tired of waiting for the freedom to live wherever they want.
That’s highly disturbing, but important to know. Thank you.
Booman, I discovered your post late last evening and simply want to thank you. I plan on sharing later with a couple of my close relatives, all of whom are classic examples of what GOP messaging has done to totally undermine their ability to recognize that they are all undermining the faith in our democracy that was a hallmark of our growing up years and into our early adult lives.
For quite some time, but particularly in the last couple of weeks, I am on the receiving end of relentless email attacks on HRC and WJC, with the occasional email about the still feckless Obama with links to conservative media sites like Judicial Watch.org and the Washington Examiner
They cannot not continue with the relentless negativity that almost always opts for the worst take on any given event or liberal official. It goes way beyond the conspiracy theories that a couple among them delight in sharing. Underneath it all they are angry and with each passing political campaign they get even angrier.
Even here there are commenters who almost always choose the worst view possible of political parties, candidates, and government. I so appreciate your posts which are realistic and pragmatically positive. We do not want to turn the keys over to a slew of angry conservatives. No good can come of that.