How do we talk about the new Republican Party?
Over the weekend, while America was obsessing about a conservative Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran, former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich said this about President Barack Obama:
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”
In an interview with the National Review On-line, Gingrich went on to say, “I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true.”
Gingrich’s comments are remarkable in the sense that they bring the wingnut “birther” fringe of the conservative movement into the very mainstream of Republican thought.
The claim that Mr. Obama — the first African American president, elected by a clear majority of voters — isn’t “normal,” and that he is “so outside our comprehension” that it’s only possible to understand him if you factor in his African ancestry, is bizarre.
It flirts with a dolled-up, intellectual version of racism.
Conservatives have shown that there are plenty of ways to question the content of Mr. Obama’s character, without dragging in the color of his skin.
But Mr. Gingrich’s kookery offers a very real and timely opportunity to flip the question and ask some blunt questions about the GOP itself.
It’s increasingly clear that the Republican movement is changing very rapidly into something which is nearly unrecognizable even to the tens of millions of GOP voters who have long anchored its success.
Across the US, you find plenty of front-line Republican candidates who share Mr. Gingrich’s shadowy suspicions about our commander-in-chief.
But you also find top-tier candidates who believe the following:
–Secession is a valid policy option for American states, and dissolution of the Republic is a legitimate topic for discussion. (Texas Governor Rick Perry)
–Illegal immigrants have created a lawless zone of violence and mayhem in American border states. (Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who claimed falsely that “our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded.”)
–Abortion should be outlawed, even in cases involving rape, incest and physical danger to the mother. (Nevada Senate challenger Sharron Angle)
–Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare should be scrapped (Alaska Senate challenger Joe Miller)
–The Civil Rights Act should not have prohibited racial discrimination by private businesses and enterprises. (Kentucky Senate challenger Rand Paul)
–One symptom of America’s immoral culture is masturbation, which is a sin on par with marital infidelity (Delaware Senate challenger Christine O’Donnell, who campaigned publicly against “self-abuse” in the 1990s)
–Our current system of income tax, which taxes the rich at a higher rate than the poor, should be eliminated and replaced with a flat tax that demands the same levy from paupers and billionaires. (Mike Lee, Senate challenger in Utah)
–The Federal government should be shut down by a new Republican majority in Congress, if such a move is needed to leverage concessions from President Obama. (Rep. Lynn Westmoreland R-GA, a top GOP strategist)
–Christian America is engaged in an “end of time” or “final struggle” with “radical Islam.” (According to a new film produced and narrated by former House Speaker and likely presidential candidate Newt Gingrich)
–The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution should be repealed so that people born on American soil are no longer automatically American citizens. (Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina)
–Abolish the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution, eliminating the rights of citizens to directly elect US Senators, with the goal of returning power to state legislatures. (A plank of the 2010 Idaho GOP platform, also supported by some tea party groups)
–President Obama is a shadowy and little-known figure. (Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, who said recently that “This is a president that we know less about than any other president in history.”
It’s important to note that none of these ideas are particularly new to the conservative movement.
But increasingly, primary voters across the US have chosen to back top-tier candidates with views that would have once existed only on the fringe of the GOP, or among low level back-bench House members.
And these views aren’t just at odds with those of Democrats or progressives. They contradict decades of mainstream Republican thought.
We tend to forget that the modern American welfare state, with its system of taxation, regulation, and safety-net programs, is the product of a long collaboration between Democrats and Republicans.
“Normal” in American society was defined over decades by politicians as varied as Richard Nixon (who implemented a lot of big government ideas) and Bill Clinton (who helped scale back big government programs).
Indeed, some of the harshest criticism from leaders of the “new” GOP has been leveled with both barrels at “old guard” leaders who held power as recently as two years ago.
George W. Bush has come in for particular scorn, for No Child Left Behind, for offering Federal drug-cost assistance to senior citizens, and for approving the first bank bailouts after the 2008 financial crisis.
Yes, American political parties have always been malleable things. The Democratic Party of 2010 has only the thinnest connections to the Democratic Party of 1960, when many of the party’s leaders were southern conservatives.
But the revolution within the GOP has happened much faster, it seems to me, and has stampeded into far more uncertain territory.
I can’t help but think that the American press and the public have fallen behind the curve in finding the right language for talking about this new ideological movement.
What does this version of the GOP stand for? Does this, to borrow Mr. Gingrich’s construction, represent an acceptable and recognizable version of “normal” conservatism?
Are we simply seeing a more honest, plainspoken and populist version of the GOP? Or something fundamentally different?
Your comments welcome below.
Tags: election10
To answer the first question, Brian, very carefully.
It will be interesting to see how long until somebody on the right takes up this thoughtful post as a cudgel to pound away at the liberalism of NPR and all public media, and to make a spurious case about how it should be completely de-funded.
And then we can watch say-anything Newt Gingrich make the rounds of the Sunday network news shows.
I agree, a new language must be, and will be adopted.
You refer to the pastor in Florida as “conservative”. Yet, you don’t know his political ideology. Only his stance on the Koran. So, your characterization is flawed because of the use of the old language.
Imam Rauf may be liberal for all we know. Yet, it doesn’t necessarily carry over to his social or political views. The language, again, is inadequate.
We will need more nuanced versions of “conservative” and “liberal” and “progressive”, etc. and we will find them, I’m sure.
Brian,
Your list is interesting. Some things are valid kookery, and some are not so much.
Succession – why not? If Texas wants out they could discuss the possibility.
Abortion should be outlawed – I don’t agree, but why can’t she have this opinion? Some folks see it akin to murder. Just like we don’t think you should torture someone even if it may save many lives, some think that there are no exceptions here either.
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare should be scrapped – Last time I checked some of these things are going to go out of business on their own. They are slowly being “scrapped” now. There is always room for new ideas, why not?
Flat tax – He also appears to favors a ‘fair’ tax which is not really what you describe. Our current tax system is broken Brian.
The Federal government should be shut down by a new Republican majority in Congress, if such a move is needed to leverage concessions from President Obama – If the president continues to run things in a completely partisan way you gotta do something. My guess is that if there is a republican majority drafting legislation the president will be even less “bipartisan” in his philosophy than he is now. He will veto everything till you send a strong message that the spending, and now the taxing will have to stop.
Isn’t all of America engaged in a struggle with “radical Islam”?
The idea of repealing the 14th and 17th amendments is really not all that radical is it?
Brian, it looks like most folks are not happy with the GOP or the democrats these days. You gotta have some radical new ideas if you want to get elected.
“We tend to forget that the modern American welfare state, with its system of taxation, regulation, and safety-net programs, is the product of a long collaboration between Democrats and Republicans.”
Brian, I would argue that folks have not forgotten this at all. People understand that these has lead to many of the problems we are dealing with today. In fact they understand that all these “systems” are breaking, or broken, or going broke or already broke. So they want someone who has the courage to try and fix them.
Generally, I don’t agree with many of these ideas but I am not running for the senate in Alaska either! One of the most centrist politicians we have seen in years (president Obama in my opinion) is not very popular why would you think that ideas like his would encourage voters? My guess is that he would not support any of these things, and I assume that you would agree. That is a recipe for disaster in a few months.
I agree with eight of the platform items.
I believe Rick Perry recanted his secession comment.
There used to be more of a clear message though. At one time basically the GOP could be said to be for a strong defense, was anti-communist, law and order, fiscal conservative (balanced budgets and low taxes) pro-business and free enterprise.
Those seem to be getting lost with all of these other issues.
Paul,
Succession? You think they should be discussing another civil war?
I guess if you want to understand me, you’ll have to study my German ancestry.
I should do this some day.
What ancestry is Gingrich so I can understand him?
“Flip the question and ask some blunt questions about the GOP itself.”
Geez Brian – this is almost ALL you do. You’re beginning to sound like a Johnny One-note.
Republicans have decided that they lost power because they were not conservative enough. Let’s see how that works out for them.
PNElba:
I agree. Let’s see.
As several people have pointed out, some of these views have been around for a long time.
But they haven’t been mainstream Republican views.
It’s important to remember that some of the most influential conservatives in modern times fought aggressively against these kind of sentiments.
This article by William F. Buckley Jr. (see link below) lays out the conservative case against this sort of conspiratorial stuff.
He also shreds (as only Buckley could) the kind of logic that many arch-conservatives use these days.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/goldwater%E2%80%94the-john-birch-society%E2%80%94and-me-11248
It’s worth noting that Buckley was working in tandem with an other conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, to try to marginalize the fringe-group known as the John Birch Society.
He argues, erroneously of course, that “the wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time.”
In fact, it is more mainstream conservatives like Buckley who now find themselves increasingly marginalized.
–Brian, NCPR
Mateo,
You are assuming that we wouldn’t just let Texas go! It is unrealistic, but they can discuss it if they like.
It is truly sad that the Republican party is devolving in this way. Everyone in my family was a Republican 30 years ago and many still are but very few will still vote for Republican candidates because they are afraid of the kind of people who have taken over the party.
The fact that Paul can write that list and consider the items as reasonable propositions is mind-boggling. Secession? Yes, you can talk about it as an idea but to seriously consider it is something akin to treason isn’t it? Or maybe sedition? I always thought of the Republican Party as the people who held the Union together not as the ones to split it apart.
Repealing the 14th and 17th amendments not radical? In which alternate universe?
Scrap Social Security? Let’s poll all our grandparents to see if that isn’t insane.
The reality is that if Democrats or Republicans want the 70% of independents that are “dissatisfied” with the direction of the country (as they say) you need some new ideas. I guess you start on the fringe!
What might be most frustrating for democrats is that their party leaders seem unwilling to change course. Spend and tax, the jobs will come….. Blame Bush….. The car is out of the ditch….. The honeymoon is over and it appears that American’s want change once again.
With this attitude the republicans can flounder around all they like and probably attract more votes.
I am 65, a Vietnam Combat Veteran, and father of three. I have always worked, paid my taxes and tried to treat people as Jesus showed us. At this moment in history, with the way the conservatives and hate-mongers are acting… I personally think that a great social upheaval or variation of a civil war in America is coming. Past history always shows us that it starts with first social unrest, then a war concerning differences in religion. It generally has crooked money lenders, power-mad leaders and corrupt judges. Sounds kinda like the stories in the old testament doesn’t it?
This is the same vile reptile who compared Islam to Nazism.
Brian, you ask if it’s a more honest, straightforward version of the GOP. With all the deceit they’re using, it’s definitely NOT more honest. The deceit is far more overt, which is perhaps what you’re getting at.
Both parties are intellectually vapid and ideologically empty, as they’ve both sold out to corporate interests. But like nature, politics abhorrs a vacuum. With Democrats and establishment Republicans standing for nothing and smaller parties blacklisted by the corporate media, the Tea Party (given tons of media attention oxygen denied other ‘fringe’ movements thus inflating its numbers) has been able to fill that vacuum. Yes, it’s lunacy, but… in politics, something, no matter how completely insane, always beats nothing.
I just choked on my coffee…Brian citing WFB? What’s wrong with the world? Is the Earth’s axis still the same? :)
Have any of you read any of Obamas books? Are you familiar with his background? Taken in the context of trying to get a handle on why Obama does things by accepting his upbringing and background are fundamentally different than, say, Hillary Clintons or Sarah Palins might not be such a crazy “fringe” racist concept. His grandfather was imprisoned by the British under Churchill, so when he sent a bust of Churchill back to Britain it makes a bit more sense if you consider his grandfathers plight. I’m not sure if I’m sticking up fro Obama or Mr. Personality Gingrich, but it does make a bit more sense when you are familiar with the background.
As for the rest of the nifty “crazy Republican” quotes, shall we start with the crazy Democrat quotes too? I think I could counter every one just using Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and limited to the past year, maybe just 6 months. We could start with Nancy assuring us that unemployment insurance extensions create jobs and just go from there.
I haven’t mentioned this idea in a while, but why not ask yourself why some states are talking secession, why some people want the 14th or 17th Amend. repealed, why some people truly fear the rise of Islam in America, why they fear the rising tide of cross border violence with Mexico. These are only crazy concerns if you can’t, or won’t, consider those peoples perspective. If you’re an Arizona land owner who fears for his family and propertys safety or a person whose life is being torn apart by hispanic gang violence then illegal immigration isn’t just a mental exercise. These people aren’t nuts or any crazier than the average liberal whose answer to everything is tax the rich. They’re looking for solutions. Just because they don’t meet with the white bread norm in Canton or Saranac Lake or E-town doesn’t mean they’re nuts.
The GOP? They change or die. I don’t much care either way, but they’ve outlived their mandate as far as I’m concerned.
Remember Wall Street supported Obama, one of his largest campaign contributors was Goldman Sachs.
So if Wall Street is going with the “progressives” who does that leave Republicans? What you may be seeing is a populist shift by the use of some of these lingering resentments and social issues. The Tea Party movement although not the poorest among us, is not made up of the country club elite or professionals, it is middle class with many social conservatives among them.
Who was the last moderate Republican to win? The last I can think of was Richard Nixon. With Dole, McCain, Bush I, I think people are saying that the moderate Republican stance is a political loser.
We will see what happens it should be interesting.
My gut tells me that if the Republicans continue to focus on these fringe issues they will become more cohesive and at the same time become a permanent minority party throwing out a winner or a new idea now and then. I don’t know if that is so bad really. The force of a large independent block of voters is healthy in my opinion.
I agree Mervel, if a large number of formerly Republican voters are simply dissatisfied with the neo-Republican/RINO platform then there is nothing wrong with seeking a new party/paradigm. Personally I find I have less and less in common with the current Republican party everyday. They can try and embrace the Tea Party but that’s like dressing Andy Williams up in rapper clothes, it just isn’t real.