The Life of Boehner

Time to face the tiger, John Boehner. (Photo: From “Life of Pi”)

As the Republican Party navigates this perilous chapter in its history, the organization begins to resemble — more and more closely — the desperate, lonely protagonist in “Life of Pi.”

If you haven’t seen or read it yet, it’s the story of a guy whose personal brand becomes so broken that he has to literally rename himself, swapping “Pi” for “Piscine.”

Pi barely survives a terrible shipwreck, only to land in a lifeboat with a tiger.

Only then it turns out maybe he was just lying to himself the whole time.

Maybe he was the tiger, threatening and terrifying himself.

Are you listening, John Boehner?

Let’s recap for a moment the events of the last two months.

The Republican Party ran cranium-first into the reality that modern Americans are no longer creeped out by gay people, have no interest in revisiting the issue of contraception (or rape), and are in growing numbers not Caucasian.

That’s the shipwreck, see?

And then there’s this little life-raft, which is fiscal conservatism.  That’s safe, right?  I mean, if nothing else, Americans are hungry for a party that will balance the books, and run a (sorry, can’t resist) tight ship.

Only it turns out there’s this tiger.

Which is the decades-ago discredited fantasy that if you just keep cutting taxes, government revenue will magically blossom and erase all deficits.

And then there’s the presto-change claim that you can actually increase spending on the military — one of our largest single budget items — while somehow embracing austerity.

In “Life of Pi,” the main character actually winds up abandoning his life boat, leaving it to the tiger.  He builds a second, cobbled-together raft.

That moment has arrived in our national politics.  John Boehner is sitting on a rag-tag collection of half-ideas, slogans, pitches and click-your-heels-together three-times arguments.

All of which boil down to a hard-line defense of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

These are notions that 65% of Americans have no interest in, which in modern politics amounts to a landslide.  Even a majority of Republicans want the rich to pay taxes comparable to those they paid during the Clinton years.

Which isn’t to say that Republicans have lost this fight.  Americans are clearly worried about deficits and the national debt.  And they’re wide open to the idea that the government needs to shrink.

Getting to that argument and that set of ideas will take time.  Republicans first need to take control of their lifeboat again and then get that lifeboat to shore.  They need coherent, math-based budget proposals — not ideological manifestos.

(In the movie, Pi finds an instruction book full of hilariously useless survival tips.  For Republicans, on their raft, that book is “Atlas Shrugged.”  Or maybe it’s Grover Norquist’s pledge.)

The alternative to facing reality isn’t pretty, as Pi can attest. He wound up on a carnivorous island, after all.  It looks safe but you wind up a pile of bones.

Are you listening, John Boehner?  Mitt Romney is on that island.  So is John McCain.

Democrats already control the high ground on racial demographics.  They dominate American youth culture, on issues ranging from homosexuality to religious multiculturalism.

They have a party full of rock stars and thinkers and, yes, accomplished community organizers, from the Clintons to the Obamas.

Republicans, by contrast, have the Bush family in hiding, a lingering romance with Ronald Reagan — who left office in 1988 — and a penchant for cannibalizing anyone who doesn’t obey the tiger.

The one thing they have left is this lingering, stubborn reputation for caring about and understanding the economy.  They should be grateful.  It’s amazing that the hurricane of George W. Bush didn’t sweep that away, too.

But Barack Obama is now presiding over a slow and steady recovery, with unemployment edging downward and optimism edging upward.

And in the fiscal cliff debate — like the debt ceiling debate last year — it is Obama who sounds moderate and seasoned and grounded.  His poll numbers, not surprisingly, are the highest they’ve been in three years.

Are you listening, John Boehner?

The answer to all this isn’t all that complicated. Republicans need to face, once and for all, that the revolution is over.

The grand drama that began with Barry Goldwaters messianic flame-out in the 1960s is finished.  Richard Parker is heading into the jungle, and he’s not looking back.

Translation:  The GOP is never going to remake America into the “real” America.  We’re not going to get whiter, or more Christian, or less gay, or more rural.  We’re not going to abandon every last scrap of the New Deal.

So what’s left then for Republicans?  Governing.  Being grown-ups.  Helping to run the country.  Protecting the borders.  Tweaking the economy.

You know, the boring business of stewarding the world’s largest economy and most important democracy.

Which means coming up with plans that acknowledge some cold, hard realities (i.e. everybody‘s going to wind up paying more taxes, and losing government services that really help people), while embracing the America we’re stuck with and not some Greatest Generation flashback nirvana.

It means shucking the Apocalistas and the people who are trying to get us all to buy gold and the wild-eyed dreamers who think we’ll all be okay if we just stockpile enough handguns.

As Pi can attest, this kind of journey isn’t easy.  But it’s also not a time for messing around.  You have to get busy when you’re on a raft and the sharks are circling.

You have to take some risks, tame the tiger, get control of your boat.

Otherwise, the next In Box essay about Republicans may wind up using the TV series “Lost” for its metaphor.  And nobody wants that.

Tags: , ,

55 Comments on “The Life of Boehner”

Leave a Comment
  1. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    And who runs the regime and makes the determination as to the accuracy of the emissions reports related to what products, from what nations and under what circumstances? Maybe you’re right and it’d work great. I googled it just to make sure I knew what you were talking about and from the 3 or 4 references I read it looks like another one of those things that would be open to both manipulation by politicians and corruption. Tariffs have a long history of good and bad results. It always sounds like they should work, but sometimes they don’t work as intended. You know that if the US slapped a carbon tariff on goods from Chinese the Chinese would place return tariffs on American goods and go to the WTO and UN and lodge complaints too. The world is against the US for the same reason so many in the US are against the “uber wealthy”- we have more. And I believe that is the precise argument that would be used by China and India. I think the deck would be stacked against us.

    How do we get them to reduce? In short, I don’t think we have a way to do it. The Chinese laugh at sanctions and laws and regulations. Patents mean nothing for instance. How do you fight someone that doesn’t play by any of the rules? I think India, Pakistan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan are better, but with the exception of the last 2 how much real pull do we have? Now a trade embargo…that would be something else. Cut off trade with China and you’d get her attention, and they’d declare economic war on us at least. The Fed owns more of our debt than China now, but China could still put a massive hurt on us.

    So I remain skeptical that we have any real option in forcing them to reduce their emissions. Whats more, I don’t think anyone else has any real options to force them to do so either, or, more to the point, the inclination to even look at it. From what I’ve seen it looks more like all eyes are focused on the west and US in particular to carry the blame and foot the bills.

  2. Walker says:

    Back to wealth distribution for a moment:

    “…even if we somehow passed a law that would take all their wealth and pass it out equally among us all, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

    Arlo, that comment suggest to me that you’re unaware of the scale of wealth disparity in the U.S. at present. The top 20% of Americans own about 85% of the country’s wealth. So if you divided all the wealth of the top 20% among the bottom 80%, you’d increase the average wealth of the bottom 80 percenters more than six-fold. I’d say that would make a noticeable difference.

  3. Walker says:

    As for greenhouse gas emissions, we’re right behind China– why do we have to get them to act first? It’s the entire planet that’s going to be in trouble.

    If you were locked in a sealed room with twenty other people, and you knew that you were all going to run out of oxygen in a month, and you knew you could burn less oxygen by keeping still, would you insist on your right to do pushups because the biggest guy in the room refused to lie quiet? What kind of sense would that make?

    It’s not as if it’s actually good for us to waste fossil fuels. We should have cut our CAFE standards years ago, and poured money into research on alternative energy. (And please don’t mention Solyndra– sure, mistakes get made. But we don’t stop fighting wars when it turns out we’re being ripped off by one of our contractors.) Eventually the country with the most advanced alternative energy production is going to have a huge advantage. China knows this. All we know is that we’ve got to make the next quarterly report look good so the stock price stays high. Long term smart we ain’t.

  4. hermit thrush says:

    arlo,
    i think a key part of a tariff regime is to get the e.u. on board too — which really shouldn’t be a problem, given that europe is generally more amenable to government action on climate change than we are. the u.s. + e.u. = the main customer base for china and india. so if the u.s. and e.u. are standing strong together on carbon tariffs, then really, what are they going to do? i agree that action on carbon should not put the u.s. at a big economic disadvantage, but this really seems like a very solvable part of the overall problem.

  5. Arlo T. Ledbetter says:

    Walker, you make me laugh! Now you’re on to the top 20%?!!! You do realize, I hope, that the top 20% includes people making as little a $60K!!!!! WOW!

    The fact remains that even if you took all the money from the top 2% or 20% and gave it to the bottom 98% or 60% you wouldn’t be addressing anything but wealth redistribution. If that is your goal, then you’re no more than a 1920’s communist. If your aim is to chance the economic ladder as opposed to sheer redistribution the you need to start with employment and the value of the dollar. We’re failing miserably in both areas. To employ people you have to make this nation THE place to do business and have your production facilities. That’s where the jobs come from which provide the workers the money to participate in the economy and support the system. You also have to reduce debt so the dollar buys more on the international stage.

    I never understood the simplistic notion of redistribution. All it does is change the players.

Leave a Reply