Republicans Are Not Losing Because of "Mistakes"

As a follow-up to my post Progressive Majority Rising, it needs to be made clear that Republicans have not blown this election through a series of mistakes. They simply have not done that. Their fundraising is as good as ever. Their ads are as good as ever. Their talking points are as good as ever, as is their message discipline. The machine is as far-reaching and well-oiled as it ever was, if not even better. Republicans are not making mistakes in this election. Even the big problems that have pushed Republican chances so low--Iraq, Social Security, Terry Schaivo, Katrina, and now Foley--are not Republican "mistakes" as such. They are instead, inherent to Republican governance now that the modern conservative movement has taken over the Republican Party and are finally being exposed by a more capable progressive opposition. Look at each of these major blows to Republicans over the past two years:
  • The invasion of Iraq was terrible policy to begin with, dreamt up by neo-con theorists in the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990's. It was always a bad idea to spontaneously invade and occupy a country that did not attack us and with a population that did not want us there. When has that ever ended well? That the policy was justified by intentionally misleading the country on WMD intelligence shows just how bad an idea it was from the start. There was no good reason to do it. Further, any mistakes that were made during the occupation, especially those by private contractors, would never receive serious oversight. The modern conservative movement has no intention of holding private companies accountable for anything. They certainly have no intention of holding their leaders, such as Rumsfeld and Rice, accountable for anything, since the only thing the conservative movement ever holds their leaders accountable for is being pro-choice. Iraq was always going to be a disaster, and the mistakes made would never be fixed. That is inherent to the Republican Party in the age of the conservative movement. It wasn't a "mistake."

  • The attempt to privatize, and thus destroy, Social Security was run by Republicans and the conservative movement with as much political smarts as any other legislative campaign they have run since 1994. However, the difference was that Democrats and the progressive movement actually successfully fought back. This wasn't a Republican mistake--destroying Social Security has been a goal of the conservative movement for nearly fifty years. It is just what they do. Again, this was inherent to the Republican system of governance in the age of the conservative movement, but Democrats and the progressive movement just managed to throw a wrench into the machine with an effective defense.

  • The Foley scandal is also the point of Republican governance in the era of the conservative movement. As brilliantly document in the 2005 book Off Center, in order to continue to govern with a radical agenda far out of line with the majority of the country, it has been necessary for conservative Republicans to operate on a powerful 50% + 1 strategy for many years. Republicans have consistently pulled power grabs in order to maintain their narrow majority through tactics such as mid-decade redistricting and voter suppression. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Republicans would cover up for a child predator as long as it meant they could keep another seat in Congress. Cover-ups in order to maintain power are inherent to the 50% + 1 strategy employed by the Republican Party in the era of the modern conservative movement. Again, this wasn't a mistake--that is just how they operate.

  • When it comes to Katrina, in the era of the conservative movement, it is in no way surprising that incompetent cronies led ineffective disaster relief operations in areas where poor people and minorities live. The crony part is a gimme: people are rewarded in the modern conservative movement for supporting the movement, not for being good at their jobs, or even qualified for their jobs. It also is in no way surprising that a movement which proclaims its desire to "drown government in a bathtub" wasn't exactly well prepared to have a governmental organization respond to a disaster of this scale. And heck, since African-American in New Orleans are not exactly a demographic the movement sees as key to maintaining its 50% + 1 majority, there wasn't an immediately apparent political need to respond with utmost urgency. Maybe if New Orleans had several women in persistent vegetative states on life support, and each of them happened to have huge, conservative, white evangelical followings, then the Bush administration would have been better prepared to capably respond. But, since it wasn't key to their own base, it wasn't high on the list of priorities.
The major events that have led to the downfall of Republicans over the past two years--Iraq, Social Security, Foley, Katrina and Terry Schaivo-were not Republican "mistakes." As long as Republicans and the conservative movement maintain power, we can expect to see more reckless and theoretical uses of the military with horrible long-term results. We can expect to see more cover-ups in order to hold onto a single seat in Congress (or maybe even something smaller). We can expect more attempts to destroy Social Security and other cornerstones of successful governance in favor of private companies and large corporations who only care about making money. We can expect more incompetent and unqualified cronies in positions of real power. We can continue to expect a complete lack of accountability for high-ranking administration officials and private companies (unless they are pro-choice, in which case they better brace themselves). We certainly can expect the federal government to care more about whatever the latest fetish of the conservative base may be more than about being properly prepared and responsive in the event of a major national disaster. This is just how the conservative movement operates. These are not mistakes. All of these campaigns were conducted with the same political skill and using the same political machine that Republicans used in order to build their slim 50% + 1 majority.

The difference is that there are now forces much more capable of countering Republican campaigns than in the recent past. While there was tremendous help from across the progressive ecosystem, Social Security would be dead right now if not for the netroots helping to keep Democrats in line. Democrats would also still be much more in favor of continuing the Iraq war if the netroots and the progressive movement had not nurtured and rewarded those Democrats willing to speak out and stand up, and punish those Democrats willing to facilitate. Would Michael Brown's previous job as a horse inspector be known if not for the netroots? Would the narrative on Foley have so quickly metastasized into a broader indictment of the Republican leadership? Republicans used to get away with these sorts of things all the time, but they are not getting away with it as often anymore. The reason is the political and media prowess supplied by the netroots, by the progressive movement and by the Democracy Alliance nexus. Republicans haven't changed or grown less competent at politics. The difference is that they are facing much stiffer competition. Democrats and progressives have earned this lead--it did not fall into our laps.



Display:


Defunding the government is a bad idea (none / 0)

Really, that's what all this cooks down to.


by jcjcjc on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:53:55 AM EST

Re: Republicans (none / 0)

Nice Post.  Couldnt agree more.  It was inevitable that the GOP agenda would sink the party.

Retro quote #1.

Retro quote #2.

i just wished the Democratic party had been able to bang together a more inspirational alternative vision thing.  


by Winston Smith on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:57:11 AM EST

Re: Republicans Are Not Losing Because (3.00 / 1)

that's why people need to stop saying Republican incompetence. It's not incompetence when the goal was always to 'starve the baby in the bath water." The baby being the federal govt. What other result could you possibly have other than ballowing debt? This is about the bankruptcy of the idealogy in terms of its ability to govtn. As has oft been said- one can not govern based on the principle of 'no govt' because no govt means one ends of with crappy govt rather than no govt.


by bruh21 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:01:09 AM EST

Re: Republicans Are Not Losing Because (3.00 / 1)

Absolutely correct.  Good post, Chris.

The Dem alternatives are, in a sense, simply the flip side to these failed policies:

1.  Dems believe in a foreign policy that realistically evaluates threats and relies on cooperation with allies to solve major problems and keep the peace.  We support the spread of democratic values and humanitarian treatment of people.  While in extreme cases military intervention may be necessary to avert a humanitarian crisis, democracy cannot be imposed from outside, and unprovoked invasions are not an effective way to spread democracy.  Instead, America must lead by example, maintaining high standards of conduct at home and abroad in keepiong with our fundamental principles.

2.  We recognize the importance of individual initiative.  At the same time, government plays an important role in providing a safety net to insure individual health and welfare.  Government must also intervene to maintain effective and fair markets and curb exploitation of vulnerable members of society.

3.  In a democracy, the government must have the consent of the governed.  Policies should generally receive widespread support, unless majority views threaten to deprive members of a minority of their rights.  While we recognize that there will always be differences of opinion and belief over policies, setting one part of society against another is not healthy.  The rules that govern our democracy should apply to all and should not be changed or subverted to benefit one party.

4.  We believe that government office, whether elected or appointed, is a public trust.  Those who serve in government must be competent and must have the common good as their first priority, not private gain for themselves, their families or cronies.  Policies should spread prosperity to a wide base both because all should benefit from their hard work, and because our history shows that broad prosperity provides the most stable base for a democratic society.


by Mimikatz on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans Are Not Losing (none / 0)

Fantastic post.


by Joanna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:34:19 AM EST

Republicans losing ground (none / 0)

I wouldn't there is a republican demise until we win the election. There were several polls out in KY4 and TN sen, where the republicans are leading in contradicting it. I wouldn't say that the republicans are going down until we win the election.


by olawakandi on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:56:09 AM EST

Re: Republicans losing ground (none / 0)

his thesis is about the party outside of the south- you cite two polls that are in the south.


by bruh21 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

everything is going according to plan (none / 0)

exactly.  this election is not about bimbo George and his follies. this is about an entire regime engaged in cold-blooded lies, theft, and worse.   this is about a failed ideology (unfortunately we had to pay for its failures twice--hopefully never again).  this is about shameless cutthroat power-seeking at all costs.  

when GWB says everything is going according to plan in Iraq, he means it, and he's right in a sense--it's just that they wouldn't have the nerve to reveal their true plan to the American people.  


by chiefscribe on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:59:38 AM EST

an important post (3.00 / 1)

and I'll go slightly further on one point.  Not only was it not a mistake to stand idly by as New Orleanians drowned and suffered, it was by design.  Such so-called "incompetence" buffets the theory that government cannot be depended upon to solve problems.  The government fucks something up, people get mad, Republicans claim that government (i.e. them) can't be trusted, and social safety net programs are slashed as a result.

They WANT government to fail, and a case can be made that they want the military to fail.  If everything needs to be privatized, then the public sector must be drained of all confidence.


by dday on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:06:31 AM EST

yeah (3.00 / 3)

Republicans keep saying government doesn't work, and when they're in charge, they prove it.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: an important post (none / 0)

I like to point out to republican friends (yes, I have a few) that private business aren't any more efficient than public, and many times will try to do a task as cheaply as possible rather than optimizing for quality.  This helps to poke a hole in the argument that the private sector is always better than the public sector when it comes to getting something done.

My best example is that if a unit of a large company is underperforming - not losing money, just not making the 10% return desired - the whole unit will get terminated.  Hundreds or even thousands of people lose their jobs and are forced to find new work, with a corrosponding strain on the social structure of society, even though it wasn't losing money!  This is a huge inefficiency from the country's point of view.


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Republicans know what they're doing (3.00 / 1)

incredible post chris.


by Ian Campbell on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:20:44 AM EST

They helped create ther own enemies (none / 0)

Good post. Extending on your final point, the resurgent progressive movement, and the more disciplined opposition offered by the Democrats, are both products of Republican success. They rolled over the Liebermans and Bidens, but in doing it they've helped create a new, tougher set of opponents.

And 50% + 1 is a great strategy as long as it works, but it leaves you without a margin of safety. Now that GOP policies are becoming ever more unpopular, they have nothing to fall back on, since their governing model can't tolerate defections.


by jimBOB on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:28:17 AM EST

Big mistakes were made, many avoidable (none / 0)

I essentially agree with this post in that the GOP has both governed horribly and come apart politically not because of failed execution, but because of hugely flawed, unrealistic and immoral ideologies, beliefs, values and policies, that were bound to come undone upon even the most careful execution and ultimately undermine the party from within and without. A turd is a turd is a turd, no matter how many layers of fancy wrapping you surround it in, and sooner or later, it'll stink to high heaven and scare everyone out of the room.

However, I partly disagree with the argument that it has not made some serious mistakes that were both avoidable and which did not hasten its apparently imminent demise. Mistakes were made, across the board, that need not have been made, and which were not necessarily an unavoidable by-product of its core ideology and agenda. And these were mistakes of execution, not ideology.

Now, I don't believe that they were ultimately what we hope will soon bring down the GOP. That would have happened of its own accord sooner or later, I believe, for the very reasons that Chris illustrated. The modern GOP has, clearly, rested upon certain highly flawed and immoral beliefs and policies that were unlikely to perpetuate its recent majority--let alone succeed--for much longer.

However, I do believe that, had it not made these mistakes, the GOP might well have been able to sustain its hold on power for another few election cycles, until reality finally and inevitably began to unravel the massive house of cards that it has constructed, both within the party and without. Thankfully, for us and the rest of country and world, it did make these mistakes, and made the inevitable come about that much sooner, saving us all yet more horror and suffering and perhaps avoiding taking us all over the cliff of no return.

For example, I think that it made big mistakes in how it rolled out social security privatization. It should have first done a behind the scenes "straw poll" or "whip count" to see just how many reps and senators of both parties would have been willing to vote for it, and to what extent of and for what form of privatization they would have been willing and able to support. And I'm talking "hard" support, not here today, gone tomorrow support.

Plus, it should have attempted to do this in stages, say, instead of pushing a plan to convert a third or so of one's social security savings into a private account, it should have first tried to create private accounts on top of and separate from social security itself. Had these succeeded, it would have created far more openness to privatize social security itself. But it was impatient, wanting to accelerate its privatization agenda beyond the public and most politicians' willingness and ability to do so, and lost.

Or take Katrina. Would it have really killed the GOP to respond more assertively and quickly to the horror there, even if it didn't give a damn about the predominantly poor and black residents of New Orleans or their votes? Did it not realize that, moral issues aside, not doing so would be poltically damaging to it? It would appear not. Huge mistake, obviously.

Of course, given how its mistakes have clearly backfired, I'm not complaining, nor am I saying that I wish it had pursued a smarter social security privatization plan (although, clearly, I do wish that it had done a vastly better job with Katrina). But I do believe that these mistakes did--quite thankfully--accelerate the downfall that its inherently flawed and immoral policies would have eventually brought about, and that these mistakes weren't necessarily unavoidable, or inherent to its way of thinking and acting. This was just plain old stupidity, of the sort that politicians of both parties have been doing for centuries. These mistakes just happened to work in our, and our republic's, benefit. Thank god.


by kovie on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:44:04 AM EST

Re: Big mistakes were made, many avoidable (none / 0)

We do already have private accounts on top of and in addition to Social Security--all the varieties of IRAs. I don't know who started them, but as a self-employed person, I've had them since the early Clinton years.


by joyful alternative on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big mistakes were made, many avoidable (none / 0)

True, but I meant ones that were administered by the government, even if they were managed by private investment firms, as opposed to accounts that were administered either by one's company, financial advisor or oneself. Sure, nearly everyone, whether employed or self-employed, can sign up for these accounts right now, but providing them through social security would make it easier for people who currently don't do this on their own to do this.

I'm not saying that this would have been a good idea (although it doesn't sound half bad to me, given how few people save and how efficient social security has been in administrating itself), just that, if I were a Repub (which I'm not), I would have taken this slippery slope approach, instead of direct conversion. But they were impatience, overconfident and arrogant, and screwed up, big time. Even some of the staunchest supporters of privatization, like the thankfully about to retire Bill Thomas, were critical of their approach.


by kovie on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many Republicans Candidates Strong (none / 0)

Excellent points.

The races that get the most Netroots attention, esp. on dKos, are the longshot cases where there is a unusually strong Dem candidate or a self-imploded Republican providing an otherwise unwinnable seat.

It's good to be reminded that a bunch of Republicans who lose this election season are solid candidates running strong races. They will lose because the Democrats have better ideas and a better vision for the country.


---

Help Keep Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia Blue

by SLJ on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:15:54 AM EST

Re: Lakoff's comment (none / 0)

Interesting a month or so ago, CPSAN carried a talk by George Lakoff to an organization in San Jose, CA. During the Q&A that followed someone asked about Bush's "incompetence". Lakoff replied by saying it always bothered him when people called Bush incompetent. He said Bush was certainly NOT incompetent, but it is his ideology or political philosophy that IS incompetent.

IOW, Bush is the competent practitioner of an incompetent political philosophy as are his followers.

Chris' post is an excellent way to get that message out in language most people can understand
and relate to.


by phillydem on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:20:17 AM EST

Sweet Jeebus, Chris! (3.00 / 1)

That is probably the best post you have ever made.  I swear, you are making a mistake not to get it published as an op/ed piece.  It summarizes everything beautifully, and is the most concise explanation of what is wrong with the Party that is running our country.

I may be drawing strange connections to things tonight.  I read, tonight, that the estimate of deaths in Iraq caused (indirectly) by our invasion has jumped to 655,000.  That really puts this disaster in a league with the works of Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, distasters of deadly mismanagement that we can see now to be inevitable giving the utopian and politically-hungry movements that spawned them.

It influenced me to read about Mao's Great Leap Forward on Wikipedia.  For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_ Forward

Mao saw grain and steel production as the two key pillars of economic development. He forecast that within 15 years of the start of the Great Leap, China's steel production would surpass that of the United Kingdom. In the August 1958 Politburo meetings, it was decided that steel production would be set to double within the year, most of the increase coming through backyard steel furnaces. Mao was shown an example of a backyard furnace in Hefei, Anhui in September 1958 by provincial first secretary Zeng Xisheng. The unit was claimed to be manufacturing high quality steel (though in fact the finished steel had probably been manufactured elsewhere). Mao encouraged the establishment of small backyard steel furnaces in every commune and in each urban neighbourhood. Huge efforts on the part of peasants and other workers were made to produce steel out of scrap metal. To fuel the furnaces the local environment was denuded of trees and wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants houses. Pots, pans, and other metal artifacts were requisitioned to supply the "scrap" for the furnaces so that the wildly optimistic production targets could be met. Many of the male agricultural workers were diverted from the harvest to help the iron production as were the workers at many factories, schools and even hospitals. As could have been predicted by anyone with any experience of steel production or basic knowledge of metallurgy, the output consisted of low quality lumps of pig iron which was of negligible economic worth. However, Mao's deep distrust of intellectuals and faith in the power of the mass mobilisation of peasants led him to order this massive countrywide effort without consulting expert opinion. Moreover the experience of the intellectual classes following the Hundred Flowers Campaign led those aware of the folly of such a plan to not dare voice criticism. According to his private doctor Li Zhisui, Mao and his entourage visited traditional steel works in Manchuria in January 1959 where he found out that high quality steel could only be produced in large scale factories using reliable fuel such as coal. However he decided not to order a halt to the backyard steel furnaces so as not to dampen the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses. The program was only quietly abandoned much later in that year.

20 million people eventually died from this calamity, mostly from starvation.  It's worth reading.  Orwell's Animal Farm was an allegory about Stalin's mismanagement of the Soviet Union, but it might as well have described what happened in China.  Again and again, in the 20th century, we saw horrific examples, like this, of utopian thinking combined with ruthless politics into a disaster machine.  In this case, it was an economic disaster, but in Bush's case, it is a foreign policy disaster.  Again, we see the ability to seize and hold on to power is totally separate from the ability to govern responsibly.  


by Dumbo on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 06:02:27 AM EST

A matter of choice (none / 0)

I would agree that, for the most part, the Republicans mistakes have not been tactical or strategic in regard to electoral politics, but in how they chose to approach governance, policymaking and our relationship with the rest of the world. In that sphere, their corruption, incompetence, hackdom, and ideological outrageousness combined to create their current problems.

More


unfutz
by Ed Fitzgerald on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 06:21:56 AM EST

Not convinced (3.00 / 1)

What's the saying, when you're explaining you're losing? You wouldn't need multiple elongated paragraphs and to reach for a secondary issue like Terry Schiavo if the premise were true and undeniable, that the Republicans have not made basic mistakes.

The last paragraph in particular is wild exaggeration. Pig farmers think the world revolves around pig farming. The gamblers I'm surrounded by every day can't imagine it when I show interest in activities you can't wager on. And obviously bloggers have a fantastically overblown view of the significance of the netroots movement.

If the netroots is so influential with amazing powers of discovery, then where was the Foley scandal the past few years? Why did it take mainstream ABC to make that explode? And what the hell relevance does Michael Brown's horse background have? He was appointed in January 2003. Where was the netroots in pointing out his background at that point? It didn't become an issue until after Katrina and slightly before his resignation in September 2005. What are we scrambling to take credit for, uncovering little embarrassing tidbits after the fact?

Social security dead. Democrats much more in favor of continuing the Iraq war. Stand back and look at those words. I can just imagine the networks and the mainstream media casually reporting the death of social security and a strange ongoing Democratic support of a failed war. But damn, minus the progressive netroots that's what we would have. Chris Matthews would be asking Democrats on a daily basis what they were thinking, to let social security die and rallying gung ho around President Bush on Iraq. Minus the progressive netroots we'd be so looney we'd be turning all our advantage issues into lead weights.

So, the GOP is not losing because of mistakes. Hmmm. I tell you what, since we're so poll inclined, why don't we let one of the major pollsters propose that question, in any basic form? I won't have much trouble handicapping which side of 50% to line up on.

And again, let's compare quotes. Very useful to judge current rationalization with what has been said even very recently. Here's October 10: "Democrats and progressives have earned this lead--it did not fall into our laps."

Now back to October 2: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/2/2021 50/034

"Please, someone pinch me to make sure that I am not dreaming. This is a total Republican collapse."

I don't know, but it seems to me if you're certain the lead has been earned and is inevitable, you wouldn't be wondering if you were dreaming, a mere eight days earlier.

And the word collapse is equated with mistakes.

In this thread there is also no acknowledgment that we were always in advantage situation in 2006. A second term midterm for a GOP president. Look it up. It's just the opposite of 2004, since a president with his party in power only one term has been re-elected 9 of 10 times since 1900. It's extremely dangerous to be oblivious of situational influence. That's why the 2008 presidential vote is so vital. It's almost like a 2-for-1 for Democrats, since that incumbent with his/her party in power only one term will apply on our behalf in 2012. The Republicans would be in a much more vulnerable position in 2012, holding power three consecutive terms.

I've certainly made misakes. I didn't think the Foley situation would assume anything of this magnitude. And I want to win as much as anyone. That's why I'm so concerned we are not building a foundation, or putting basic Democratic themes into the mindset and vocabulary of average Americans. Newsflash: once we're in charge the GOP troubles, philosophical or mistakes, are gone and irrelevant. You buy a car and suddenly it's the focus, not the models you rejected. I've seen no indication we are ready, or can expand on a slim majority if we're not relying on a collapsing GOP. I want to be great. At that point you don't have to debate why the other side has fallen.


by Gary Kilbride on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 06:27:31 AM EST

Re: Not convinced (none / 0)

interesting- so the core of your argument is that long explaination is a sign that answer is wrong, but then you provide a long explaination- hmmm, interesting.


by bruh21 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not convinced (none / 0)

It was an unneeded little remark that exposed him to your little irony-jab, but it was hardly the "core" of his argument - which is quite cogent, IMO.

Chris is absolutely right to point out inherent flaws in the GOP philosophy.  But I think Chris is ignoring how particularly, how exceptionally, bad this administration is. Take the Iraq invasion: this is a policy which, I believe, would NEVER have happened under any other administration. McCain and Lieberman are no geniouses, for example, and have stood in full support of the invasion, but if either had happened to have been President during those years, we would never have invaded Iraq. There is no question in my mind. It takes an exceptionally stupid President to have done this.  Indeed, George H.W. Bush certainly had the opportunity to do it - and chose not to.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 11:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Foley was a mistake (none / 0)

Hastert didn't have to tolerate him for 50%+1 Hastert first found out between elections. There was plenty of time to pressure Foley to resign "to spend more time with his family" (what a disgusting picture that conjures up). Jeb Bush would appoint the interim Congressman, so he would be reliable. Re-election would be no problem either, in that rich Republican district, as long as the replacement could keep it in his pants and didn't wear a tin-foil hat.
by antiHyde on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 06:37:21 AM EST

Re: Foley was a mistake (3.00 / 1)

Jeb Bush would appoint the interim Congressman

Governors do not appoint a new representative when one dies, goes to jail or otherwise gets his reward early as happens with senators.  There is a special election - if the vacancy is even filled.

Best,  Terry


by terryhallinan on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Foley was a mistake (none / 0)

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the Party choice should have easily won the special election. And Hastert should NEVER have condoned Foley running for re-election, knowing he had this ticking bomb.
by antiHyde on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mistake for America (none / 0)

I think people use the word mistake because these were mistakes for America.


by xebecs on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:56:34 AM EST

Conservatism- the god that failed (3.00 / 3)

Ulimately it doesn't matter whether conservatism failed in execution or in ideology, only the perception that conservatism the ideology failed matters.  I think a 19th century governing philosphy is incapable of dealing with a complex 21st century society, so put me down on the conservatism the ideology failed side of the debate.

Regardless of what I think, or anyone else thinks as to what happened, our job is to spread the message that conservatism the ideology failed. To do to Conservatism the Movement, what they did to liberalism in the 1980's (and arguably what the New Dealers did to conservatism in the 1930's). Make it a dirty word, a label that politicians flee from, not a badge they wear proudly.

So the proper response is:What did you expect?  A 19th century governing philosphy is incapable of dealing with a complex 21st century society, of course conservatism failed.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:16:38 AM EST

Chris, you are making a serious point (3.00 / 1)

Chris, this post is incomplete. It is a great essay on the policy errors by the +evangelicals+ that have taken over the party . There is nothing inherently wrong with conservatism, per se.  A face, and a name for the "effing crazies" is precisely this: the evangelicals. The ones who put Reagan into power.

Conservatives are generally identifiable by their proximity to Nixon's views on the world - many of these people are opposed to the takeover of their party by the evangelicals and have voted the party line due to the criminal behavior of its leaders - the needle, and the damage done.  People like Kevin Philips, for example, are the Bush administration's most profound and serious critics.

I think, however, this is a fine distinction that only the republicans will really be interested in, after they are dealt defeat in the upcoming election.

What you are touching upon here, if I may try to finish your very complete and elegant thinking - is the very idea of what the so called progressive movement stands for.

Remember, the term progressive has never really stuck. It was used to describe the campaign of Roosevelt, and a party - nearly a hundred years ago, and it lasted all of about 10 years. A cynical movement now afoot to identify all of us with this term, knows this.

What instead, this movement stands for is the construction of a party in america that is connected, clear and confident.  

Let us simply call it the Democratic party.

The internet, has changed this landscape forever. The American electorate now sees nearly 100 million ( I am not making this up) viewers of such sites as youtube. Your site here, myDD, probably has insane viewership numbers.

Google correctly identified this trend and simply held to a high standard - they realized, as perhaps those of us bringing about real change in the party - that results are being used in mission critical applications - doctors, flight controllers, people searching for answers with no room for advertising inserted into the results.

Instead, they simply moved the results off to the right.  

What this means to us, in the terms of party context is that we can simply separate ourselves from the process of smear and fear - the reality TV show that government has become - and identify with an electorate that has become increasingly more sophisticated. One that can verify the truth and facts- realize, that Americans read their email. And they know what Junk mail is. Karl Rove has driven this country into a half-crazy spiral of scandal and insanity - the very fact that the GOP's internal policing mechanism breaks down so badly it cannot contain Karl Rove's evangelicals and their corrupt influence on policy is testimony. I agree that this is not a mistake. Rove has always weighed politics over policy - and policy has always suffered.

No. This is no the democratic party.

Donkey Rising, Chris.  The movement afoot is one in which the party identified with it - will last as long as the internet.

That means, forever.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:23:01 AM EST

Re: Chris, you are making a serious point (none / 0)

the issue isn't simply evangelicals- demonizing them and excusing other parts of the flawed ideas of the republican party seems to give a pass go to those flawed ideas such those, for examaple, of the economic conservatives like the club for growth who wanted to "drown the baby [the federal govt] in the bathwater"


by bruh21 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome Post (none / 0)

Incredible Post.  So good, I copied it verbatim (with source citation) to my republican friends (including my father), explaining that it was a failed ideology, not individuals, who drove the Republican party to where it is today.  

An eye-opener, and one that draws a HUGE distinction that I don't believe I really thought of prior to this morning.

That is, the Republican Party hasn't made mistakes.  The results were by design.  


by Dave in PA on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:39:37 AM EST

Also they are being exposed for what they are (none / 0)

You can only cover-up and lie to a certain extent.

But the truth will eventually come out.


by jasmine on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:27:10 AM EST

Re: Republicans Are Not Losing (none / 0)

Brilliant.

Between this and the analysis of the 1st non-southern majority majority, you're on fire dude.


by scientician on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:50:10 AM EST

Politics is not football (none / 0)

And your essay is a brilliant corrective to the play-by-play pundits.

It's the policy, stupid.


by stevehigh on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:25:19 AM EST

Conservatism Is The Mistake (3.00 / 1)

As Phil Agre argued in "What is Conservatism and What Is Wrong With It? which begins thus:

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

   Q: What is conservatism?
    A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

   Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
    A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

I brought this essay up here in the context of Chris's post-election analysis in November 2004.  And Chris wrote about it here shortly afterwards.

Some people--including folks I respect--have objected to Agre's analysis as too simplistic, even as "agit-prop."  But Agre is talking about the core beliefs, the constants beneath the surface, which have necessarily been submerged in recent years, as direction opposition to the ideals of democracy and equality has become increasingly unacceptable.

The surface ideologies have been carefully honed for maximum palatability, but in the long run, the fruits of the core ideology will out, which is what we are seeing today.  And they can only clearly be seen for what they are when a vigorous opposition, not in thrall to the conservative mythology, finds its voice and its audience.

Chris concluded his piece thus:

We will be unable to develop our own narratives unless we are able to cleanse ourselves of our complicity with conservative narratives and conservative lies. We need to face up to what conservatism is, and who conservatives are. This is half the process of figuring out / remembering who we are.
This, in large part, is what we have done, and why we are in the position we hold today--on the verge of a possible realigning election that could spell the end of a mercifully brief, but incredibly destructive conservative era.  But we've only really begun this process, as the overwhelming imbalance of the media reminds us every day.

Onward!


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:25:29 AM EST

AP- Voter Interest Highest in 10 Years (none / 0)

What do you think of this headline,Chris? From the AP- Voter interest in election highest in 10 years-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_o n_el_ge/motivated_voters_ap_poll;_ylt=Ah 4nLnI6npps8E7Sj3f13ySyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2 Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Does this bode well for Dems in Nov.?
by cmpnwtr on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:30:04 AM EST

I think so (none / 0)

It is an indication of possible higher turnout than normal, and higher turnout usually favors the Democrats.


by Geotpf on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Republicans Not Losing Because of Mistakes (none / 0)

This post is exactly why I think we progressives need to start talking about "failed conservative policies."  

A couple of years ago I did a Lexis Nexis search for "failed liberal policies" and found hundreds of references.  This was a powerful conservative meme from Reagan onward.  When I searched for "failed conservative policies" I found three citations, all in the UK and all referring to Thatcherism.

We need to adopt this meme "Failed Conservative Policies" on our side.  The failures of the right are not mistakes in their execution -- as Chris points out -- but rather these conservative polices are abjectly failing the American public.  

I wrote an article about this on AlterNet a while back:
http://www.alternet.org/story/19029/


by spivak on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:12:41 PM EST

Re: Republicans Are Not Losing Because of "Mi (none / 0)

I disagree, somewhat, althought I do agree that most of the Republican "mistakes" that some point out aren't mistakes at all - they're the result of conservative policies, and should be rightly called "failed Conservative policies".

However, there are two very real mistakes that I can think of regarding the current Republican administration and legislature.  The first is Medicare Part D - that mess should not have happened, even under a conservative regime.  The "donut hole" in the middle is pissing people off, and it shouldn't have had to happen - hell, the numbers they used to come up with it were completely fictional, they might as well have just fully funded it or not bothered with it at all.  Sure, it would have been a bad idea with the way it is funded, but most of their policies ARE bad ideas, so making that particular misstep was idiotic.

The other is Social Security - not the actual proposed policy, but the ham-handed messaging that they had for it.  The "decider" kept his plan under wraps, so the talking head couldn't get on message about what was going on.  They didn't figure out the vocabulary to talk about it until far into the media cycle.  Now, its true that prior to the last few years this might not have hurt them in the long run and they might have recovered from it, and the progressive movement as a whole deserves a pat on the back for making a big noise over this.  But it was a costly mistake on their part that shouldn't have had to be made.

The entire Conservative movement is about selling bad policies with a smile, and making people think that bullshit is pure gold.  Hell, people (e.g. voters) STILL believe in "trickle-down economics" as a viable tax model despite the fact that we've been trickled on now for six years and all I'm seeing is urine - the money is going out of the country or into Paris Hilton's doggie dish.  When they screw up the sales pitch and surrounding spin, its at the very least a mis-step if not a mistake.


by NonyNony on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 04:56:24 PM EST

Republicans are reaping what they've sown (none / 0)

Great post, I agree there's going to be a strong post-election narrative will be along the lines of "perfect storm", "bad timing for Rs", and just "bad luck", with the republicans not being at fault for what's happened.

Hopefully, though, we can start to make our point about how Republicans are just reaping what they've sown, and that it's a failure of their policies, not bad luck, that has been their downfall.  They have had a chance to test all their policy theories, and have failed miserably.


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:27:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.