2009.01.03
I SWEAR it wasn't me!
Pardon my colloquial tone, but Republicans, New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman put yall's junk out there Friday. Yup, he called ya'll "a party of whiners." I mean, dang, that's tantamount to playing the dozens, isn't it!?
Bad luck brought a string of disasters on Bush's watch. The economic implosion was masterminded by an evil Democrat. The dog ate my Iraq post-invasion plan. (OK, I made up the last one.)
But seriously, here is the gist of Krugman's column:
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
Is Krugman right about the right?
Not sure how he arrived at that conclusion when the brightest star in the GOP was and probably still is Condi Rice.
Comment by mike — January 3, 2009 @ 1:21 am
Sure, Mr. Krugman is right. You reap what you sow.
Comment by Shaun — January 3, 2009 @ 5:17 am
I am an unreconstructed Eisenhower Republican. Not many people know of the work Eisenhower did to end racial discrimination. His actions were more pervasive than those of Truman or Kennedy.
While racial backlash was certainly a part of the change to the party 40 years ago, that and other changes were just sysmptoms of a more pervasive disease.
The post-Goldwater Republicans "went off message."
When the party was FOR something: small business, small government, local control of government, etc., it was stronger and more effective.
When it bacame another party of contrarians (like the Democrats of the 1960s and 1970s), it began to lose members who became independents or Libertarains, or whatever.
Old line Republicans became embarassed by people who took control of the party after Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964. As one of those, I look to the heritage of the Republican Party and see very different picture from the one often painted by today's Republicans.
Although he was reluctant to come to the position, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, evoloved his felling abour racial prejudice (due in large part to the badgering of Frederick Douglass). Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive leader who fought against the very same conditions that have precipitated today's financial calamity. Dwight Eisenhower used executive decrees to open the door to ending the economic slavery of African Americans.
I believe that Mr. Krugman is partly correct in his assessment of The Right. It was not just racial backlash that weakened the Republican Party. It was a general loss of focus on the goals of good government and fair treatment in a free enterprise society.
Perhaps it is akin to the managment bromide: When you are up to your armpits in alligators, you forget that your goal was to drain the swamp. The implied conclusion being that if you had drained the swamp, the aliigators would have moved on.
MLR
Comment by Michael Ramsey — January 3, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Anti-Republican talk from Democrats. Amazing.
Perhaps, but is there any truth in what he says?--s
Comment by Henry — January 3, 2009 @ 10:41 am
As MLR points out, Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans have been pushed aside for the political expediency of the "Southern Strategy". Unfortunately, for Republicans, this has turned out to be a truly southern strategy which is making them relevant in one region of the country-the South.
The other Henry on this thread misses the point that this isn't anti-Republican talk but an accurate assessment of where the GOP is at this very moment. The brutal fight for the leadership of the party, that's taking place now, shows the resistance to change from inside the organization. If the far right of the party doesn't see the errors of its ways, then the party will become less and less attractive to an electorate that's becoming more and more diverse, tolerant, and open-minded.
At some point, the moderates in the GOP will break away to form a viable third party with other like-minded individuals, such as the ones Mike Ramsey points out. This will be good for the country, so there will be the proper checks and balances to the works of the Democrats. The GOP will be too impotent at that point.
Comment by Henry Hale — January 3, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Oh yeah? Yeah?! Well, Krugman's momma's so fat....
I'm too tired to think right now, but it seems almost like the Hatfields and McCoys sometimes. Been arguing so long, sometimes people don't remember the reason for arguing.
LOL!!!!--s
Comment by Ed S. — January 3, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
All i see in either party is greed, corruption,and a desire to feather ther own nest.We need a strong 3rd party to put both parties back in line.It seems that nothing gets done to help the common man in this country.Both sides think that all is needed to keep their jobs is a good press and if something goes wrong they to have paid their dues so a cover up and good press spin will hid it under the rug.Both sides need new blood to be able to help us the people again.We should not buy into the lies in every election about what good any one of them has done.Clean house and get real change because electing the same old bunch wont get the job done.That is the reason I feel Obama will falter. A good new person with good intentions but all around him are from the old school. Sorry to say but he doesnt stand a chance when the wolves turn on him.
Comment by charlie — January 3, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
At last!!! A couple of previous bloggers have hit it on the head. It's time for a third party. And the people who desperately need representation are Conservatives. I mean can anyone see anything even remotely conservative about the Republican party anymore? It's the Religious Party but it's also full of corruption. So let's have three parties: the Conservative party, the Liberal party, and the Religious party.
Now remember, conservative means small government that does what it's supposed to do but no more. It means self responsibility, fiscal responsibility and the CORRECT amount of regulation. Environmental protection too. Treating everyone equally...etc Conservative does NOT actually include anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-evolution, anti-whatever else it's come to mean. That's the Religious party. And it's not pro big business and anti-environment either. That's just corruption. Anti-big business will be handled by the Liberal party. For no government see Libertarian.
Here's the problem. Do we try to kick the Religious Party people out of the Republican party? Sounds kind of mean doesn't it. Or do we create the Conservative party and let the religious people and the corrupt people (and no I'm not saying they are the same people) keep the Republican party name?
I say the latter. The religious faction has a good platform going for their views and they know it. So let em keep it!!! And truthfully, religious people deserve a party all their own. They don't need all this fiscal policy, foreign policy, liberal, conservative nonsense to cloud the issues they want to pursue. Leave "Republican" to them and let them deal with the corruption that's there now. That's one less thing we conservatives will have to do. We start clean!
So let's get it started. Yay Conservative Party!!!!!! What will we use for a mascot? What will happen to the terms "right" and "left"? Will we allow "somewhat" religious people into our party as long as they don't try to take over and make us pass amendments against gay marriage? What will the media bash us about if they can't hit us with anti-gay, anti-female, old white man, old rich man, abstenance only, or big business barbs? Will we feel sorry for the media? So many things to figure out....
Bubba: You auditioning for my job? You've got the gift. This is great satire, which is not easy to pull off!--s
Comment by Bubba — January 3, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
I "hear" that the times will be a changing much like the 60's. The players in DC are born and bred for the job and naturaly cave to the heady greed/power/corruption, exibiting an us v you mentality. I was thrilled to learn that donations would in large part pay for the festivities of the president elect. That is how it should be. We did not get here overnight and we won't resolve this overnight, but our voices, our true needs must be represented consistantly to effect change. And that will take sacrifice from each American. It begins with ONE and lots of good intention for all. Special interest, religious or whatever, any kind of lobby for deference must be abolished.
Comment by Dona Wheeler — January 4, 2009 @ 3:17 am
I was going to say a lot, but Charlie and Dona said it all. And got it right too.
Comment by Percy Kution — January 4, 2009 @ 11:41 am
A two-party "system" of electing government leaders was invented by two feuding ego-centric members of the Washington administration -- Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Interestingly, Washington was opposed to political parties because he felt they would breed corruption of the intent of the Founders.
I once made a presentation to a patriotic group about the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and how that convention helped spawn the country's two original political parties.
I also talked about the evolution of political parties over the ensuing two centuries. I was amazed to learn the number of third and fourth and fifth parties that had existed during our country's history -- some of them very effective in moving the ship of state back on course.
We are fooled too much by the "wizard behind the curtain" who works very hard to divert our attention away from the fact that the Democrat and Republican parties are staffed by over-paid, under-worked professional fund raisers and rabble rousers who really add no value to our daily lives.
It is staggering to think of the billions of dollars that are regularly diverted from productive use to elect someone to public office.
The problems of the Republic Party are due to its strident social and political positions which are out of kilter with the beliefs of the majority, and that, sadly, may include racial prejudice (not something on which Republicans hold a patent or a monopoly).
MLR
Comment by Michael Ramsey — January 4, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
The only way to reduce corruption is to reduce government, regardless of party. There is no one leader or party or set of policies that will appease everyone.
Comment by Jim — January 4, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Amen, Jim.
Whatever happed to "that government is best that governs least"?
MLR
Comment by Michael Ramsey — January 6, 2009 @ 6:39 pm