by Natasha Chart, Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:41:01 PM EDT
It's time to begin referring to the Republican Party by more accurate terminology. For example, as the White Nativist bloc of a former British colony. People who claim against all sense and reason that they're the only "real" representatives of their migrant-saturated current homeland, while glossing over both their cruelty and fear with a dreamy sentimentality.
That might sound harsh, but seems far more polite than pointing out that they've become the storm drain catchment for every batsh_t, nihilistic bigot left orphan by the dissolution of the American Independent Party.
Given that, one thing was certain as far back as the point in the Democratic primary when it was clear that either Clinton or Obama was going to be the nominee: we were going to see peaks of wingnuttery this cycle that would make us alternately cringe, gape, and boggle. Oh, the optimism.
But they've learned some lessons since the last time they got their guano on. For one thing, you do not want this guy to be the main face of your party while you're doing it ...
Way better to transmit your not-too-subtle message about how citizenship is only for (virginal or married) straight, White, rural, conservative, Bible-believing* Christian through the mouth of some sexy Puritan. And listen to them go, laying down the law about who gets to be a real American:
Not that all your spokespeople can be expensively styled women. At some point, you run out. Then your motivating principles still have to pass the old White guy test. It goes a little something like this: if an unremarkable old White guy says in public what your core following believes in private, does it make him sound like your favorite uncle or like some dubious, overcoated stranger pitching the candy in his pockets?
Eventually, people like this pick up on your message. A message that, as voting patterns can attest, has already gotten through loud and clear to everyone offended by the demonization of US citizens who are non-White and non-Christian:
But having partially plumbed their lunacy, a question remains: When your voting majority and much of your leadership consists of those xenophobic White people who believe the government shouldn't meddle in personal matters like mass transit, civil liberties, municipal water supplies, universal childhood education and bridge repair, can your party be called a coalition anymore?
They invited the crazy in themselves, they drove away anyone who thought "f___ you, and the horse you rode in on" was a bad political platform, they're going to have to make it stop. The hard part is wanting to, and I hope they manage it. Because they're as American as anyone else, and they're making the rest of us look bad.
* Seriously, wtf does "Bible-believing" mean in the context of talking about people who identify as Christian? Is there some sect of Christianity I haven't heard of that rejects the Bible as a fraud? If someone insisted on calling themselves a Koran-believing Muslim, or a Veda-believing Hindu, I think you'd look at them kind of funny. And they'd deserve it.