« Brave New World | Main | Reagan Rorschach Test »
November 09, 2006
"Minutes upon minutes of soul-searching"
Shakes here, with some post-election thoughts...
This is freaking hilarious. Check out this story lead in the WaPo today:
After minutes upon minutes of soul-searching, Republicans are now in recrimination mode. And the GOP's various factions all agree: This wouldn't have happened if the party had listened to us.
That. Is. Awesome.
In the aftermath of the historic GOP losses Tuesday night, moderate Republicans quickly concluded that the party needs to be more moderate. Conservative Republicans declared that it should be more conservative. Main Street is angry at Wall Street, theo-cons are angry at neo-cons, and almost everyone is angry at President Bush and the GOP congressional leadership.
Welcome to the club!
The rest of the article lays out all the various finger-pointing, which provides some amusement—especially for someone like me, who’s been accused of being "why the Democrats can’t win" after every election for years, for reasons generally in the area of "being too liberal" and "having the unreasonable expectation that Democrats not be sexists and homophobes."
In any case, there are obviously a whole slew of reasons why the GOP lost—corruption, greed, out-of-control spending, unprecedented expansion of government, undermining civil rights, inflexible partisanship, cronyism, base pandering, corporate welfare, redistributing wealth upwards, ignoring the environment, wretched prejudices, the Iraq War, Katrina, Terri Schiavo, etc. The American voters had a litany of complaints, and they encompassed interests of all the factions who are now pointing fingers at each other. It was, in the end, everything.
And all of it goes back to a single mistake the GOP made: They forgot that Americans hate their government.
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens—all of us. We hate our government, because it’s always doing either too much or too little, or simply the wrong things. Across the political spectrum, there is near-unanimous agreement that our government should stay the hell out of our business, unless and until we need them. Defend us and save us—that’s all we want. And we want other things, too, that we don’t associate with government, though we should—clean water, mail, fixed potholes. But we just want it done without having to hear about it. We want our representatives to represent us, and leave us the hell alone.
For good or ill, that’s the lay of the land. And the GOP started ruling as if it weren’t. They fancied themselves rock stars—flying to Scotland for a golf game, flaunting their pork barrel projects. Look at this bridge to nowhere—is this sexy or what? We’ve got a mandate, bitchez; the people love us, they really us! They crawled up their own arses and there they stayed, as if they were celebrities rather than civil servants, and believed they could do anything, because the people love their government.
Fools.
They completely lost all perspective, which is why they started getting everything backwards. They intervened in the Schiavo debacle, and didn’t intervene in NOLA. (At least not quickly enough.) They tried to privatize Social Security, and eschewed the idea of public healthcare. They gave themselves a raise and failed to increase the minimum wage. Backwards. All of it. Because they forgot that the Americans hate their government, except when we need it.
And boy oh boy do we need it now. We need the new government to fix all the disasters wrought by the old one. That gives the Democrats a sterling opportunity to remind America what a dedicated party of civil servants looks like—and let us hate our government again in peace, which is all we really want to do.
(Crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister.)
November 9, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Right on the money.
Posted by: Rob | Nov 9, 2006 1:34:46 PM
As i pointed out elsewhere, this isn't a Democratic victory, it's a chance. If they blow it, we'll be back in the same mess in '08.
Posted by: William Bollinger | Nov 9, 2006 2:00:44 PM
I think what liberals forget is that people wnat certain things from government... as long as they don't have to pay for them. I think newfound "fiscal responsibility" plays an important role in why they lost and why we won - and we should be careful to live up to that promise.
The other thing is, as you rightly point out, this orgy of finger pointing and blame making is the big story. And we have been there. And let me tell you, anyone who thinks there's a short stay in the wilderness when you are bereft of new ideas, solid leadership, and are about to engage in a serious circular firing squad... should think again.
Good luck out there! Pack a sleeping bag and plenty of provisions! You're gonna need them! :)
Posted by: weboy | Nov 9, 2006 2:02:45 PM
Minutes upon minutes? Whoa. That's some serious soul searching.
Posted by: TJ | Nov 9, 2006 2:13:39 PM
it will get worse- there isn't as much of a riff on the left as there is on the right. at base, most of the left agrees on the larger picture- that's not true of a christo conservative and wall street conservative- there is no point of agreement other than wanting to win.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 2:14:16 PM
"Americans hate their government, except when we need it."
Brilliant summary of American politics and civics wrapped up into one sentence. I'm going to steal this and use it on my conservative family members the next time they start ranting about the government.
Posted by: NonyNony | Nov 9, 2006 2:19:53 PM
I think newfound "fiscal responsibility" plays an important role in why they lost...
Absolutley. It was a loss for Republicans. Why? They promised their conservative base certain things and then did not deliver.
No border control - Republicans did not enforce the laws
No marriage amendment - Many, even in the party called this a "distraction" when the base clearly wanted it.
No fiscal restraint - spending was uncontrolled.
No all out effort for victory in Iraq - The war was 'managed' as they listened to the press and to their out of power critics instead of pressing the war full tilt boogie.
Republicans did this to themselves.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 9, 2006 2:41:03 PM
For a good laugh, check out the "hey don't look at me!" blurb that Limbaugh has put up on his site. He blows on about how "liberated" he feels now that he doesn't have to carry water for corrupt, lying ass GOP cronies. His neurons must look like thousands of ants fleeing a shoveled ant hill.
Posted by: sprocket | Nov 9, 2006 3:13:12 PM
No all out effort for victory in Iraq - The war was 'managed' as they listened to the press and to their out of power critics instead of pressing the war full tilt boogie.
Republicans did this to themselves.
Posted by: Fred Jones
I'm afraid to ask, but how exactly would you "win" the war, Fed? Adding another 400,000 troops? Dropping a nuclear weapon — sorry, "glassing" — a major Iraqi city and calling it pacified? There's a lot that could and should have been done differently in the early months, maybe even the first year or so, but I haven't heard any explanation of what we could do going forward that would turn Iraq into anything other than either a strong ally of Iran or a chaotic ongoing civic war. If you have such a plan, don't hold back on us.
You're right that Republicans did this to themselves — by occupying Iraq for longer than three months, if not by invading in the first place.
Oh, and "full tilt boogie"? Yes, Fed, because Quentin Tarantino movies are just the model our foreign policy should follow. Oh, how I wish you were a spoof...
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 9, 2006 3:27:14 PM
Fred, Republicans didn't accomplish those things because they're split on them. Some of the strongest supporters of illegal immigration are conservative businessmen, an important part of the Republican base. The anti-same-sex-marriage crowd couldn't agree on what they wanted to outlaw. (Should civil unions and benefits to same-sex partners be banned?) The budget was busted because they cut income but even their base couldn't agree on what spending to cut. (What would you have cut?) Much of the base supported the limited war plans until it was obvious they weren't working. (Didn't you?) It's a split base that's the problem.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 3:42:56 PM
Oh, I don't know Sanpete, why can't it be both? The base has been slowly fracturing for years, and the last two really just sped up the process; but there have certianly also been a series of bad decisions and/or weak legislation. The Republicans (George Bush, Karl Rove or wherever one wants to lay the blame) devised a strategy of ignoring lefty ideas and arguing asmongst themselves based on their notion of control of House Senate and the Presidency. That's what strokes me about the totality of their election disaster and the period of wilderness time they're about to spend - you could get new ideas, but who would sell them? You could change leadership, but what's that leadership going to sell as a new idea? It's both.
And just to be fair to Fred (who is up front about Republican failures), I don't think he's any more responsible to come up with an Iraq solution than any of the rest of us. It would have helped if Iraq had been done differently - however one wants to define "different." But the fact is, what we have now is a disaster, and fixing that will not be simple. And we all seem to get that. At least that's what the election and Bush's lurch to dismiss Rumsfeld tell me.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 9, 2006 3:52:00 PM
at the risk of pissing some folks off- although I hated nadar in 2000- I think - what has happened since has led to a chance for a counter revolution to the Reagan revolution. This is the first time I have been able to say this in well - my entire adult life.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 3:59:15 PM
Weboy, the idea about the split base isn't a denial of failure; it's an explanation for it.
I don't expect Fred to come up with a solution for Iraq. I just pointed out that he, like most of the Republican base, probably supported the strategy in Iraq that led to the failure he now laments. How much of the Republican base was calling for 400,000 troops in Iraq during the first year? Again making the point that the problem wasn't that the party leadership didn't do what the base wanted. The base either couldn't agree or actually favored the failed policies.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 4:15:10 PM
Whether it's right or wrong, Democrats have now taken ownership of the war, just as Nixon did. They were elected, have taken control of both houses of Congress and if things don't go well, will be blamed for it. They are not on the sidelines carping anymore, but in charge of both houses and hold the purse strings.
Blaming previous owners, as Nixon did, will not cut it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 9, 2006 4:55:00 PM
In 2000, Bush barely won, and before any of you clowns claim he stole the election, I can back up my assertion with some pretty liberal sources.
In 2002 the people elected Republicans cuz of 9/11. Pretty self explanatory.
In 2004, the base turned out for both parties. The right has a bigger base. The fact is that Kerry was nominated cuz the Dems thought he was electable (they took awhile to figure out he was a baffoon), the Dems recognized that Dean had no chance. And Bush hadn't shown his true colors on illegal immigration. And although the MSM did everything they could to demonize Bush and the Repubs, they still won.
In 2006, Bush showed where he stood on illegal immigration. The administration is fighting Iraq in a politically correct way. The Repubs showed they are almost as corrupt as the Dems, and the MSM ran with it to make it appear the Repubs were more corrupt than the Dems. The MSM also downplayed the economy. Plus the Repubs showed they were spineless(couldn't get Bolton confirmed, etc.). The base didn't show up.
I held my nose and voted, but most conservatives don't pay as much attention and don't care. Why would they? There is not that much difference between the parties. The Repubs did this to themselves, as Fred said. The Dems had no plan or direction, only 'something different'.
Please tell me what the Dem's message is besides 'something different'.
If the Dems are moderate, they may maintain power for awhile, if not, they won't. You clowns are going to be awfully disappointed when these moderate Dems don't support gay marriage, abortion on demand(partial birth abortion, no parental notification), cutting off terrorist surveilence, etc.
Oh, and akaison has been right about me all along. I voted against Ford and for traditional marriage. That means, according to the akaison, that I am a racist and a homophobe.
sanpete, most of the Repub base does not support fighting the war in a politically correct manner. For example, when terrorists are firing at you from a mosque, you level the mosque. Iraq could have been won if the war had been fought the way war was fought in WWII, not Vietnam. Iraq may be lost now, because I don't see any reason the US would fight it like a war now, if we wouldn't when Repubs controlled the gov't.
On the bright side, maybe the Dems will legalize it. Yeah, right.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 9, 2006 4:59:00 PM
democrats are not the president of the United states- apparently equal protection isn't the only concept the conservatives dont understand. the president controls foreign affairs. the best we can do is to put a check on what the president does and provide oversight. we dont get to pick his DoD (in fact he's making sure of it by asking the lame duck congress to appoint both the new DoD and also Bolton to the UN).
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 5:27:19 PM
I voted against Ford and for traditional marriage. That means, according to the akaison, that I am a racist and a homophobe.
Of course you are....and so is everyone else. That's why Mr. Ford did not win and the marriage amendment passed.
BASTARDS!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 9, 2006 5:36:18 PM
Fred, the Commander in Chief will continue to receive the primary blame for matters related to strategy and tactics. That's his job, not that of Congress.
Toke, as I said, the Republican base, probably including you, was behind Bush's tactics in Iraq until recently. The war hasn't been hindered by not blowing up mosques (something that even Bush can see would be really, really stupid, no matter whether it's politically correct). The war was hindered by poor planning and execution, while the base supported the very points that were screwed up--until recently. Now you and Fred turn around and act as though it wasn't so. Bush didn't abandon the base. The base was either unable to agree with itself or supported Bush to the hilt. The base has been turned off by the results of its own failures.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 5:36:46 PM
Tokes - as a pretty rad fag, I have no illusions about what Democrats will do vis-a-vis gay marriage; the gay marriage issue is largely a nonstarter, and my main hope is that tghings simply don't get worse. I do believe that Democrats will not, as Republicans suggest, pass some sort of insane federal amendment making gay people even less able to exercise their rights than they are now. I don't think your racist or homophobic; I siomply think you are wrong.
As for your version of electoral history, it's relatively useful, but the point is that the GOP base, by itself, is not able to act as the majority. Both bases, left and right, rely on moderates and independents who are less loyal (and who most of us, left and right, do not understand or necessarily respect) and more easily swayed. That's who was with you in 2004, and that's who has walked away in 2006, and that's the problem you will have in 2008 - getting them back. And the reasons they walked are multiple and inter-related, both on domestic issues (where many are not as absolutist on social issues, and want better approaches to spedning and budgeting) and foreign affairs (where the failures in Iraq simply did Bush and his supporters in). Something different? Sure - and that will do when the GOP has nothing to offer but more of the same. That's why it's "hello wilderness!" for conservatives, because the lack of ideas, combined with the lack of good leaders, will mean a period of rebuilding before coming back.
And yes, Sanpete, I stick to my sense that it's a failure on all levels, not just a split base, but also the ideas that animate their coalition. But you're beautiful, man. Stay classy. :)
Posted by: weboy | Nov 9, 2006 5:49:31 PM
sanpete, you don't know what you are talking about.
The base does not support Bush's lack of a veto, especially on spending, or Bush's stance on illegal immigrants. Bush's statement implying he could work better with this congress on illegal immigrants made me cringe.
I don't care if you believe it or not, but I guarentee that the base would have rather seen this war fought like WWII.
"The war hasn't been hindered by not blowing up mosques (something that even Bush can see would be really, really stupid, no matter whether it's politically correct)."
Consulting lawyers before attacking escaping Taliban at Tora Bora. Not firing at Taliban because they are at a funeral. Allowing the terrorists to escape from Falujah by giving them a three day warning before attacking.
That is not how you fight a war.
If terrorists were firing at troops under your command from a mosque and would not surrender, what would you do?
Any reasonable person would level the mosque.
You'd probably try to talk to the terrorists.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Nov 9, 2006 5:51:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09relig.html?ref=politics
according to this- the GOP base was animated as usual this year. they lost because the GOP base is not enough to win. it never was.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 6:06:42 PM
Toke, you're not paying close attention here.
What significant spending cuts was the base unified in favoring? Please name enough to balance the budget, despite the tax cuts and the war that the base so very much supported. You're just dreaming if you think the base had any better ideas on this. The base got exactly what it supported: impractical tax cuts and unrealistic dreams about spending cuts.
Who benefits most directly from illegal immigration? Hint: they're mostly part of the Republican base. You and Fred and some others may not like it, but behind the scenes a good chunk of influential members of the Republican base have been pushing for Bush's immigration program. Why do you think he had it in the first place? Because he's a bleeding-heart liberal? Wake up, Toke. It's the base that can't agree with itself on this.
Again, how many of the base, including you and Fred, were taking issue with the way Bush was running the war until recently? You and Fred look back and absolve yourselves for supporting the very things you now blame Bush for. It's the base that backed him on this; he didn't abandon you. You abandoned him.
The failures you're pointing at your leaders for are the reflection of the failures of the base. Take some responsibility.
Any reasonable person would level the mosque.
Find one military expert with knowledge of the region who agrees with you. No, Rush doesn't count. You're thinking with your spleen.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 6:31:25 PM
at the risk of pissing some folks off- although I hated nadar in 2000- I think - what has happened since has led to a chance for a counter revolution to the Reagan revolution. This is the first time I have been able to say this in well - my entire adult life.
Are you positing Nader as Goldwater? A key difference, FWIW, is that Barry seemed to be genuinely liked by everyone who dealt with him personally while Ralph is by most accounts a complete sonofabitch...
Posted by: Pooh | Nov 9, 2006 6:34:33 PM
nadar is an idiot. I am only positing that even a monkey can sometime get it right. conservatism needed to be tested. we fought for decades to prevent that full vetting by the american public of conservative ideas. it has been tested, and while the public may or may not be ready for the dems to do all we can do in a left ward move, they are definitely in a middle of some kind of changed ideas on conservatism. without bush, and nadar, what took 6 years, may have taken 20 more of the clintonian fiddle around the edges to prove: conservatism as practiced in America is as bankrupty an idealogy as communism.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 9, 2006 8:46:56 PM
Shakes -- That my friend is about the most accurate observation on the average American's relationship to politics that I've ever seen. As one of the non-average Americans (i.e., one of the ones obsessed with politics), during this immediate post election period I've been reading the blogs -- and more importantly, a lot of the comments -- to get a sense of where the newly triumphant blogosphere is moving in terms of supporting a Democratic agenda. Although my heart truly lies with the REVENGE crowd, my head is with the GOVERN first crowd. The former plays to us, the non-average, the latter to the rest of America. There will be plenty of time for investigations, etc., in the normal course of governing. That should be our strategy, to begin to "normalize" politics and government again so that everyone else can get back to "hating" the government in peace.
Posted by: westcoastwizard | Nov 9, 2006 9:21:03 PM



