The Republicans are doomed!!

[Dave_Schuldt]

From the Economist via my Republican dad.

 

 

SHIP OF FOOLS

Nov 13th 2008

 

 

Political parties die from the head down

 

JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the

stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated

high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era.

As Lexington sees it, the title of the "stupid party" now belongs to

the Tories' transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

 

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party's defeat on

November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the

battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a

group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters

with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a

household income of more than $200,000--many of whom will get thumped

by his tax increases--by six points. John McCain did best among

uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

 

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than

they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election

armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill.

Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums

home. Torture and Guantanamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be

water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten

Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

 

The Republican Party's divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while

in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his

"heart" rather than his "head". He also filled the government with

incompetent toadies like Michael "heck-of-a-job" Brown, who bungled the

response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes'

favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the

financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains.

And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed

Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree

in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most

rudimentary facts about international politics.

 

Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future.

The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its

ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not

only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class

Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order,

and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy

agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a

compelling agenda.

 

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming

more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university

degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year,

up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69%

call themselves "professionals". McKinsey, a management consultancy,

argues that the number of jobs requiring "tacit" intellectual skills

has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The

Republican Party's current "redneck strategy" will leave it appealing

to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

 

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost

patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many

conservatives--particularly lower-income ones--are consumed with

elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders.

They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh

and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin's

apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

 

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia

itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do

battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer

fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed

world. The movement has little to say about today's pressing problems,

such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of

its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

 

Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of

what Julian Benda dubbed LA TRAHISON DES CLERCS, the treason of the

learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of "real

Americans", with their "volkish" wisdom and charming habit of dropping

their "g"s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by

Beltway journalists from the WEEKLY STANDARD and the NATIONAL REVIEW

who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then

noisily championed her cause.

 

TIME FOR REFLECTION

How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses?

There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party

has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are

becoming the party of "white-trash pride". Anonymous McCain aides

complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying "whack job". One of

the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship

of the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who

has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New

Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th).

 

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many

conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not

conservative or populist enough--Mr McCain, after all, was an

amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama's

associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders

of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled "Ideas have

Consequences"; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing

to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.

--------

 

Now go back into your caves and leave us alone while we try to get things going

again.

 

 

[Skeezix]

Are you calling Fairweather stupid?

[j_b]

Of course, the republicans have pandered to the uneducated and religious lunatic fringe. BUT did it really take 30 years for The Economist to figure it out? I am tempted to ponder whether the uneducated class or The Economist are the morons in this affair. Until the economy forced most people to consider their economic welfare instead of the usual rightwing pandering to xenophobia, racism, homophobia, etc .., 25% of the voting population was suffcient to win, and more recently steal, elections. In fact, I still can't see how Palin is obviously more incompetent than Bush or Reagan who by the way were championed by The Economist.

 

The Economist is pure ideological propaganda. They refuse to draw the appropriate lessons from the GOP debacle, which was in great part due to the economic and financial collapse following 30 years of neoliberal policies which have destroyed the middle class. Policies of extreme inequalities that were and still are championned by The Economist.

 

If I were you Dave, I'd tell my father to quit reading that trash.

[billcoe]

....BUT did it really take 30 years for The Economist to figure it out? ...

 

Ha! And they missed the first 8 years of Geo W Bush and company! Well, they must drive forward by looking in their rear-view mirrors, so perhaps this comes natural.

[prole]

[Recycled]

You realize, of course, that the Economist gave a front page endorsement to Obama in the issue prior to the election?

 

The Economist is no fan of corrupt or incompetent corporate management. They have pulled few punches over GWB's expansion of government, erosion of liberty and incompetence over the past few years. They've also consistently argued for gay civil rights, against overreaching religious fundamentalism and for a more rational approach to US health care. Actually, it's an interesting mix of Liberalism with a Euro social touch.

 

You might want to read it a bit more, if only to better stand how evil job-creating businesses work and how much trade ultimately matters.

 

 

[akhalteke]

Yes, I really don't see the Economist as a bastion of the Right-wing conspiracy or a Fox-news offshoot.

 

I am a long time subscriber and find them remarkably neutral (likely due to their poly-national writing staff).

[prole]

The Economist is remarkably neutral if you're narrow enough to think that free-market capitalism and classical liberalism are the only philosophies worth considering. If that's the perspective you're looking for, the Economist is the ticket.

[akhalteke]

Prole, may I suggest PRAVDA.ru? I peruse it now and again. Might be to your liking.

[pc313]

The GOP is like the JIM JONES CULT of politics,but don't have the balls to drink the koolaid! Ya they got 46 million followers,most miss guided and miss lead,but the cream on top are fucking crooks and are laugthing at us all,and why these criminals are not behind bars is beyond me and the 56 million who voted them out? We will be years studying the hows and whys we let it happen!!

 

Below is a picture of your average Republician!

[prole]

Prole, may I suggest PRAVDA.ru? I peruse it now and again. Might be to your liking.

 

Ja, add Mein Kampf, Alastair Crowley, the Turner Diaries, the Anarchist's Cookbook, Chicken Soup for the Soul, the Protocols of Zion, and the Left Behind series to the mix and we're getting somewhere! [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC5hPzonErs

[pc313]

Prole, may I suggest PRAVDA.ru? I peruse it now and again. Might be to your liking.

 

Ja, add Mein Kampf, Alastair Crowley, the Turner Diaries, the Anarchist's Cookbook, Chicken Soup for the Soul, the Protocols of Zion, and the Left Behind series to the mix and we're getting somewhere! [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC5hPzonErs

 

Damm, Prole you've done alot of PERUSING!! Nice video, boy those Repudlicans are noisy!

[dt_3pin]

They've also consistently argued for gay civil rights, against overreaching religious fundamentalism and for a more rational approach to US health care. Actually, it's an interesting mix of Liberalism with a Euro social touch.

 

You might want to read it a bit more, if only to better stand how evil job-creating businesses work and how much trade ultimately matters.

 

 

True dat. It's a great weekly digest of world political and economic news. I don't agree with every editorial position the Economist takes. But then again, I don't limit myself to ideologically homogenous sources. YMMV. What's there new motto - Great minds like a think. If anything, it's good for that.

[j_b]

You realize, of course, that the Economist gave a front page endorsement to Obama in the issue prior to the election?

 

A large majority of the gamblers on Wall-street also wanted Obama, and seeing that the architects of deregulation on the democratic side (Rubin, Sumners, Volker, etc ...) are at the top of the list of the Obama team, they may very well have known what they were doing.

 

The Economist is no fan of corrupt or incompetent corporate management.

 

They may believe their own propaganda about the virtuosity of unregulated corporatism but anyone who thought that GW in any way or form was competent in 2000 and didn’t call for GW’s impeachment after that has little judgment worth considering.

 

They have pulled few punches over GWB's expansion of government,

 

Of course they pander to the small government mantra since it is at the core of neoliberal propaganda to weaken government. Yet they cheered for a war of choice that blew government budgets skyward and put several trillion dollars of public funds into corporate hands. So much for small government and "free" markets. In other words, they advocated policy that was the exact opposite of what they preached, which makes them either liars or stupid.

 

erosion of liberty and incompetence over the past few years. They've also consistently argued for gay civil rights, against overreaching religious fundamentalism and for a more rational approach to US health care. Actually, it's an interesting mix of Liberalism with a Euro social touch.

 

The Economist has been at the forefront of cheeleading for deregulation, assymetric globalisation (all finance-oriented corporatist control but no political checks and balance) and for the rape of the environment (like via financing charlatans such as Lomborg). They systematically bash the northern european model (even today) that is the closest to an attempt at mixing markets and social justice and cheered the speculative bubble model that lead us where we are today. The Economist regurgitates to yuppies what comes from corporatist think tanks like CEI, AEI, CATO, etc ..

 

You might want to read it a bit more, if only to better stand how evil job-creating businesses work and how much trade ultimately matters.

 

I am all for decent job creating business. To be more porecise, I am for socially/environment conscious businesses and pro-fair trade, and contrary to The Economist, I am against short-term greed oriented corporatism that made policy for the last 30 years and drove the world near economic collapse.

[prole]

Yeeeahh, git sum, beeyotches!

[mkporwit]

Yeeeahh, git sum, beeyotches!

 

[bradleym]

so everyone is corrupt or stupid except you, and all problems facing us have simple explanations and solutions. why didn't we make you president?

[billcoe]

so everyone is corrupt or stupid except you, and all problems facing us have simple explanations and solutions. why didn't we make you president?

 

Hi Bradley! Good bumping into you last night. You should have been doing laps earlier in the year with us outside before it rained. BTW, there is a little climbing wall close to your work in Lake Oswego. Kevbone found it only as his company was moving across the river, so I thought I'd just say it now. Maybe it's all old news. Also, Ujahn has like 3 secret bouldering areas close to you, he use to live @ a block off the lake and found these spots while on runs etc. Ask him about it sometime he doesn't keep secrets. I went to one once, and it's a little shithole, but I got pumped fast. (common occurrence:-)

[j_b]

so everyone is corrupt or stupid except you,

 

Not at all, a large majority of americans are solidly on the left like me.

 

and all problems facing us have simple explanations and solutions. why didn't we make you president?

 

I'd like to think it's because I wasn't running but I am no fool, I know that like they do to many candidates the corporate media would have boycotted me.

 

So, I guess you didn't have a specific reply to any of my arguments? Fancy that.

[billcoe]

I thought you had some good points JB.

 

Edited to add: I tend to be very suspicious of magazines ever since I learned that Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine) dad, Malcolm, made a mint of money by literally and legally blackmailing corporations. His tactic would be to squash negative stories if you paid full price for a 6 page ad. If you chose to disregard his friendly attempt to help you, and not to place the ad, then the story would run with extra "sky is falling for your company" spin. If you were preparing a bond offering, it would be disastrous.

 

Who says all the pirates live in Somalia?

 

Cya!

Edited November 21, 2008 by billcoe

[j_b]

I thought you had some good points JB.

 

I strongly suspect we agree on most things if we get past the ISMs

[tomtom]

Not at all, a large majority of americans are solidly on the left like me.

 

 

Which explains why Bush was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004.

[j_b]

Not at all, a large majority of americans are solidly on the left like me.

 

 

Which explains why Bush was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004.

 

When political machines spend 100's of millions of dollars on propaganda appealing to fear, the outcome of voting is sure to be skewed.

 

Bush got in with approximately 25% of the voting age population, lost the popular vote in 2000, and stole 2004 by disenfranchising voters.

[tomtom]

Not at all, a large majority of americans are solidly on the left like me.

 

 

Which explains why Bush was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004.

 

When political machines spend 100's of millions of dollars on propaganda appealing to fear, the outcome of voting is sure to be skewed.

So people like you voted for Bush because of TV ads?

 

Didn't Obama outspend McCain 5:1 in the last month of the last election?

 

 

[olyclimber]

I have never read so many hollow, bird brain comments than here. There is not much I.Q. And some good comments of course. Osoma Husain is a muslim deep down. Also a socialist, communist thinking, and as much anti-God and anit-God’s word and teaching. Husain is going to give us a change we wish we had never expierenced in our life time. This nation has forgotten God in every walk of sieciety and the devil has taken every idle mind over. He is close the fore runner of the anti-christ. But all borned again christians has a bright future, heaven is our goal, and you can’t get better than that. It is Heaven or hell, I choose Heaven as my destination. People that don’t like to talk about our Lord and his goodness, you know where they are going. They judge themselves. The Bible says you will know them by the lives they live. A blind person can see this. People that likes to talk about Christ and his goodness and live with him in our heart has a very bright future. I choose to love the Lord and obey his word. For when you have a personal relationship with him, no one can tell you any different, because when our heart is right our whole life changes to please him. The Bible says his word is so plain that a child can understand it. What is wrong with those that don’t obey his word? God will have the last say wheather we like it or not. The alpha and omaga the beginning and the end.