« How The Affluent Society Looks | Main | UNfunny »

November 01, 2006

A Man Without A Home

Quick note on the John Cole post everyone's talking about. As Steven Benen notes, various Republican hacks are trying to write him out of the ideology, certain that his (annoyingly) constant application of political principles is a bid for all the money, fame, and attention a link from Crooks and Liars gets you. Benen links to John Hawkins at "Right Wings News" saying, "Personally, I haven't considered Balloon Juice to be a Republican/conservative blog for a long time. In my book, Cole traded in his party and his ideology a long time ago and the only reason he's still pretending otherwise is because it benefits him to do so."

Quick history: Back when I was but a baby Blogspot blogger, looking up the mountain at the mighty Matt Yglesias, I used to notice this guy John Cole in his comment threads. And I'd see Matt and him arguing back and forth, sometimes in comments, sometimes on front pages. I used to wish serious, tough rightwingers like John would take me seriously, and I took it as a major mark of accomplishment when, later on, John began blasting my beliefs over at Pandagon. This was, mind you, no more than two years ago. So here's a selection of John from back then:

On Reagan's death, mocking the response of lefty bloggers (actually quite funny, too).

• John talking down to me about Clinton.

• John defending Republican chickenhawks.

• John parroting the "flip-flop" charge on Kerry.

And here's much more. Point is this: John's often been an asshole. But he's been a consistent asshole. He adores the military. He loathes political opportunism (which he often called out in me). He thinks Reagan is awesome. He thinks taxes are bad. And here he is, amidst all that, in February of 2004, suggesting Al Roker should play Jesus in Gibson's Passion of the Christ, because "[t]he look on Tom Delay’s face as he went to a viewing of my version of the Passion would be priceless."

At the time, he was a member of the right in good-standing. Now he is not. Why? Because as the Christian Coalition replaced the Reaganite Right, he said the same things he's always said. And as the political desperation of the GOP birthed a series of smear ads and lies, he called that out, too. He's not a leftist. And believe me, Democrats, you'll notice when you start trying to pass policy or retain power. He'll be a royal pain in the ass. And that's because he's a conservative. In the end, the current rightwing revulsion towards John isn't because he left his party. And it's not that they left him. It's that they're kicking him out for being insufficiently hackish.

November 1, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

haha, you nailed it perfectly. Great job, Ezra.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 1, 2006 2:00:30 PM

Good on Cole for calling them like he sees them, and letting the chips fall where they may. And his career/hobby will be the more successful for it in the long run. I'm not really persuaded by his distinction between Reagan Republicans and the current lot, I must say; the only difference I can see is that Reagan's faction didn't control all three branches of government.

Some liberal blogger (no one in particular, I hasten to add;) should enter into some kind of affiliate/co-blogging relationship with Cole. Like inviting him to guest post (again, no blog in particular am I recommending this to). Then that blog could more aggressively weed out trolls, yet still have a lively discussion.

Posted by: kth | Nov 1, 2006 2:29:17 PM

I think it is a little more complex then that. People like John Cole and Andrew Sullivan had, I think, an idealized vision of the Republican Party as a party that perfectly matched their beliefs, and any deviation from that in reality was blamed on liberal control of key institutions. When the GOP gained control of everything, this delussion was shattered, with a great deal of pain.

That is not to say his critiques are not without merit. I think he is a smart guy, and admire his writing, but there is a sense of betrayal, in what he writes, that leads not just to criticism, but to viscious attacks.

I find such criticism over the top, not because they are not accurate so much as because they were never part of 'the deal' to begin with. Religious conservatives being a strong presence in the Republican Party is hardly something that is brand new, and I expected that they would use that influence to do things I might not agree with.

Then again, I have never been a 'true believer.' Republicans have always been the lesser of two evils for me, not the one true faith.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 1, 2006 2:37:13 PM

Let's please not conflate Cole and Sullivan. The former is at least honest and even a bit contrite. The latter is just an opportunist: He's said so many stupid things in the past, yet now he treats those declarations as part of somebody else's past.

Fuck Sullivan. Seriously. I hope he chokes to death on a chicken bone.

Posted by: Jimmm | Nov 1, 2006 4:06:48 PM

Fuck Sullivan. Seriously.

What? I won't deny that Sullivan can be a little hackish, but when it came down to the big decisions - like whether to fire George Bush in 2004 - Sullivan got it right while Cole was passing along GOP talking points. The seething animus towards Sullivan on the left of the blogosphere is entirely unearned.

Posted by: Christmas | Nov 1, 2006 4:31:08 PM

The seething animus towards Sullivan on the left of the blogosphere is entirely unearned.

I remain, almost despite myself, a Sullivan fan, but I'll say that this is simply entirely wrong. Sullivan has worked hard to earn the bad feelings liberals have towards him. His tenure as editor of The New Republic witnesses some truly egregious pieces of hackery for which he is rightly excoriated and should be ashamed. His 2001-2003 period of Bush-league cheerleading merely cemented that for many people, who recall all too well TNR's role in providing a thin sheen of bipartisanship to the right's anti-Clinton crusades.

I like a lot of Sullivan's writing, but the man's got a lot of karma to work off.

Posted by: NBarnes | Nov 1, 2006 5:29:48 PM

To rephrase, then: Sullivan hasn't earned any special animus that John Cole hasn't. I've nothing against Cole, but the notion that he can be held up as an example of a "good" Republican in contrast to Sullivan when Sullivan voted for John Kerry and Cole voted to reelect the worst president in living memory is simply ludicrous.

Posted by: Christmas | Nov 1, 2006 5:54:31 PM

A Republican party with voices like John Cole's would restore a healthier politics to the US. I saw a repeat of the CO-4 debate, and the Reform candidate is an ex-Reagan official who objects to Marilyn Musgrave's one-trick-pony incumbency, and talked about being 'locked and loaded' should someone want to interfere with his family's end-of-life decisions. Impressive guy.

Heck, I'm even sympathetic to Alan Schlesinger in CT, even though I don't agree with many of his positions (especially his anti-immigrant stuff).

Republican orthodoxy is a matter of adherence to practice over doctrine. That's why Hugh Hewitt has such a prominent role, as a man who would gladly blame the Democrats and defend Bush if he decided to start killing kittens with hammers on the Oval Office desk.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Nov 1, 2006 6:17:47 PM

So, Hohn Cole is the Christopher Hitchens of the Right? Without the "drinking and smell" I presume.

Posted by: Guy Montag | Nov 1, 2006 6:44:43 PM

I think it is a little more complex then that. People like John Cole and Andrew Sullivan had, I think, an idealized vision of the Republican Party as a party that perfectly matched their beliefs, and any deviation from that in reality was blamed on liberal control of key institutions. When the GOP gained control of everything, this delussion was shattered, with a great deal of pain.
...
I find such criticism over the top, not because they are not accurate so much as because they were never part of 'the deal' to begin with. Religious conservatives being a strong presence in the Republican Party is hardly something that is brand new, and I expected that they would use that influence to do things I might not agree with.

It's true that Schiavo and related religious right pandering was the trigger for John Cole, but that's not the end of his complaints. In the famous linked post and several other times recently, John devoted a lot of attention to the hyperpartisan, cutthroat, fact-free elements that are influential (to say the least) in both the party and its advocates.

This isn't the first time I've linked to this Carpetbagger Report post comparing politicizing of this war to politicizing previous ones, but it seems really relevant to me.

Other wartime presidents have been much more reluctant to argue that only their party was committed to success. (Followed by examples of Johnson and FDR, but the final example seems the most relevant):
Even President Nixon displayed more restraint during the 1970 midterm election. Nixon barnstormed the country asking voters to elect members of Congress who would support his war policy. But he took pains to avoid claiming that only his party wanted to win. "This is not a partisan issue," Nixon declared that October at a rally for a Texas Republican Senate candidate named George H.W. Bush.

Given the gross incompetence (for starters) demonstrated by many leading Democrats, it's a defensible position that they would be worse. (I wouldn't agree with it, but it is defensible, especially if you compare apples to apples and make the assumption that they would have one-party control.) But when Bush is demonstrably more partisan than most (even Richard Milhous Fucking Nixon!) in the handling of as serious a matter as Iraq, there is a big, big problem.

Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 1, 2006 7:00:00 PM

Because as the Christian Coalition replaced the Reaganite Right, he said the same things he's always said.

What a stupid way to put it. The Christian Coalition hasn't been a major force in the Republican Party for, what, ten years now? If the Christian Coalition is what drove Cole away, he should have been long gone.

Posted by: John Doe | Nov 1, 2006 7:47:42 PM

John is a good honest man.

Now for an unpopular opinion, so is Josh Trevino.

Posted by: Big Tent Democrat | Nov 1, 2006 8:18:01 PM

"The Christian Coalition hasn't been a major force in the Republican Party for, what, ten years now?"

Wow. What universe have you been living in?

Unless you mean the specific group that called itself the Christian Coalition, headed by Jerry Falwell, in which case you might have a thin and irrelevant point.

But the issue isn't that specific group. The issue is what it spawned: the people who brought us the extra-lovely Terri Schiavo spectacle, who pressured the FDA to hold off approving Plan B for OTC, who withdrew funding from international family planning programs that counselled patients on birth control and abortion, who succeeded in getting an anti-late term abortion law passed in the face of expert medical testimony against the law, who keep trying to get Creationism/ID into school science curriculum, who tried to get NASA to stop using the word "evolution" and who have succeeded in getting NASA to stop studying Earth's climate, who have also succeeded in defunding or burying governmental studies on climate change and other environmental issues, who have infiltrated the Air Force training academies with Christian Fundamentalists preaching an End Times approach to military policy, who think gay marriage is the most important issue facing America, who declare that the war in Iraq is God's War... and, last but not least, who occupy the Oval Office and say things like "God told me to invade Iraq"-

If that's what you mean when you say "The Christian Coalition hasn't been a major force in the Republican Party for, what, ten years now?," then you have got to be living in another universe. Because the Christian Coalition - the Christianists, religionists, fundamentalists, call them whatever you like - is not only "a" major force in the Republican Party, it is the major force in the Republican Party.

Posted by: CaseyL | Nov 1, 2006 8:54:34 PM

And so this is the party's delimna today. They are being split apart by the one faction that is all fundie all the time and the other faction that is the Reagan Reps.
Since the fundies won the power struggle to this point the other faction is being pushed out. This is a party that Goldwater and Reagan would not approve of.
The gop will continue veering almost over the cliff of the far right before they begin to work thier way back.
By then, The moderates will have left the party.

Posted by: dlake | Nov 1, 2006 10:22:37 PM

I don't know. Since when is Ronald Reagan worship moderate? Also, parroting the flip-flop meme is pretty hackish.

I suspect he'll want back into the hate-Hillary-all-the-time club soon enough. He may have to do some hit piece on how power has corrupted the democrats after just two weeks. I guess the republicans might just allow him back in after the election.

Posted by: tomboy | Nov 2, 2006 5:23:38 AM

Reagan successfully merged social conservatives with economic conservatives way back in 1980. I imagine Cole didn't object then since the country clubbers were still in charge. It is bit disingenous acting like he just found out the activist base of his party is a bunch of fundies.

No matter what Sullivan does he will never make up for his 9-16-01 column in which he implied liberals would support terrorists and dissnent amounts to treason. -
"the decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." He also wrote on his blog "We might as well be aware of the enemy within the West itself - a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead." He was all demagoguery back when playing up support for GWB and the Iraq war was popular and good for business.

Posted by: Cole not Sullivan but both tools | Nov 2, 2006 6:56:09 AM

so is Josh Trevino.

That would be Josh "Liberals opposed Ben Dommenech because of their bottomless hatred of parents" Trevino?

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 2, 2006 11:35:48 AM

I dunno, I don't think the Republican party was thinking of Mr. and Mrs. Suburban Christian when the Bankruptcy bill went through or when it was agitating for Social Security "reform" and abolishing the estate tax. Will we now get a "What's the Matter with Wall Street?" thing going with the poor Economic conservatives being scammed with promises of tax cuts and getting Gay Marriage bans instead.

Stay tuned, sSooner or later we'll figure out who's taking advantage of who.

Posted by: DonRobbie | Nov 2, 2006 6:25:25 PM

****". But he's been a consistent asshole. "*****

Yeah, all consistent conservatives endorse Robert Byrd.

guffaw

Posted by: RW | Nov 3, 2006 11:00:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.