About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Friday, May 01, 2009

The unraveling of the GOP

Readers of this blog may have noticed that I have written little about politics since Obama’s election. The reason is that I’m still basking in the light of the new direction the country has been moving (which, of course, does not at all mean that I agree with all of Obama’s choices so far — he’s a bit too moderate for my taste). I’ve also been privately gloating about the seeming unraveling of the Grand Old Party and saw it as rather tacky to do so in public.

Still, I cannot help myself from commenting on a recent article by Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican Governor of New Jersey and former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under George W. Bush. Whitman is, by all accounts, a moderate Republican, and wrote this op-ed while mourning the recent switch of Senator Arlen Specter to the Democrats, a move that could put the Democratic Party in control of a super-majority in the Senate, when (not if) the courts in Minnesota finally declare Al Franken the winner of last year’s election.

Whitman worries “about the direction this country could go with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority” because “the United States needs two vibrant, competitive parties” especially given “the economic crisis, the war in Iraq.” Funny that the Republicans were not as concerned about wielding power with no regard for the minority for much of the last eight years, including a threat to use a "nuclear option" in the Senate to stifle debate. Of course a healthy democracy does need more than one vibrant party. Indeed, one of the main problems with American democracy is that there are only two parties wielding enough power to make a difference. Then again, the Republicans have managed to do so much damage to the Unites States, both internally and externally, that frankly a few years of “excesses” in the other direction are simply going to bring us back toward some sort of middle ground, if we are lucky.

It is much less funny that Whitman seems to be completely oblivious to the obvious fact that both the economic crisis and especially the Iraq war (she forgot “the other war,” apparently) are a result of the insane economic and foreign policies of her own party, policies to which she contributed to some extent, as a member of W.’s cabinet. Suffering from a severe deficiency in her short term memory, she wants to “remind the nation that our party is committed to such important values as fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world.”

Really? This is classic Orwell-style newspeak. “Fiscal restraint” really means tax cuts for the rich and war spending that ran our economy into the ground; “less government interference with our lives” is a bit hard to reconcile with the strong religious prescriptionary bent of the Bush administration, not to mention its illegal secret wiretapping program to spy on Americans; “balanced environmental policies” are the very same policies that gutted Whitman’s own EPA (from which, to her credit, Whitman resigned in 2003, partly because of Cheney’s insistence in easing air pollution standards); and an “engaged foreign policy” obviously translates into bullying and bombing other countries so that we can have our way. Thanks for the offer, Christine, but I’d rather try Obama for a few years, if you don’t mind.

Whitman concludes by reminding her readers that “the Republican Party has a proud heritage and much to add to the current debates, but only if we can return to the principles that made us the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.” Except that those three people represent very different sorts of parties, becoming increasingly worse in an almost linear progression in time. Lincoln surely was one of the greatest presidents the US has ever had, remembered of course above all for his defense of the unity of the country and his fight against slavery. Eisenhower was almost a liberal, counting among his achievements the very socialist construction of the interstate highway system, the continuation and expansion of New Deal policies (social security, health, education and welfare), and two Civil Rights Acts (in 1957 and 1960). Heck, he even realized that it was not a good idea to intervene in Vietnam, though he then endorsed that scoundrel Richard Nixon as his successor (a plan postponed by a few years because of the unexpected victory by John F. Kennedy). As for Reagan, well don’t get me started, I have a list of complaints about him that would take a whole series of long posts to go into, and it wouldn’t be good for my inner spiritual balance. The point is that Reagan, and even more so the W.-Cheney pair, most certainly are not the same kind of GOP that Lincoln and even Eisenhower would have recognized, so let’s not pretend that these figures are all part of the same “proud tradition.”

Still, Whitman’s call to the few moderate Republicans left to organize and take back the agenda of the party is worthy of praise, and I wish her success. The irony is that her op-ed was published in that alleged bastion of journalistic liberalism, the New York Times. Will anyone in the GOP bother to read it?

30 comments:

  1. Very well said. I quite agree, and I also hope that moderate Republicans can win back their party, though I am doubtful. It seems to be moving farther and farther to the right. I just hope the Democrats don't alienate the American public by using their new found power to push too far to the left, too fast. While you and I and many others might appreciate a dramatic leftward shift, it's likely it would generate a backlash and put the Republicans back in power much sooner than they otherwise might. The Dems should learn from the Rep's excesses of the last 8 years. They are more likely to hold onto their power longer if they govern wisely, with moderation and compassion, rather than with agenda and arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both parties have moved left. My family use to be Dem but the Reps of today were the Dems of 30, 40 years ago. Party politics aside, I am currently neither Rep or Dem. The fact that both parties have more or less lost their identities, isn't really good for any of us, but it is what it is.

    In FACT God put us all where we are today, and He'll use whatever mechanism He needs to to bring 'the collective' to a place of humility once again. So I am not worried about what all these people do. Believe me, no one (even Franken) is getting away with anything. You'll see.

    I also, of course, don't agree with much of the social issue stuff the left espouses, but I love the people on the left. Chatting with one of our friends last night who is Jamaican, loves Barry Sotero aka Obama, thinks that we're possibly racist for not supporting him. But that's okay, she can have her opinion on that (I know my heart) and I still love her.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it is interesting that caliana's viewpoint illustrates the power of perspective in altering "fact." Since there is never really a clear definition of spectrum (left or right) in politics, it makes sense that you feel justified in posting what you do. It can't be demonstrably proven incorrect, because there is no definitive position that can be authoritatively labeled "left" or "right."

    From my own perspective, I think that both parties have swung to the right; but it is hard to find an absolute reference point at any time in history. Certainly, as a nation we are far to the "left" of any of the feudal governments in pre-enlightment history. The mere fact that many countries use representational democracy as a form of government is a sign of leftward progression in overall civilization.

    That being said, when comparing the policy directions that the United States have taken since 1980, the deconstruction of the idea that government is a good thing (because in a Republic we have the power, in concept, to influence policy;) the false notion that less regulation frees the "invisible hand" to do what is best for society and that "War is not an expense" indicates to me that we are far to the right of where we should be.

    Where is Joel Charon when we need him most?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Since there is never really a clear definition of spectrum (left or right) in politics, it makes sense that you feel justified in posting what you do."

    Not true. Social Issues.

    The most important people in the OLDER SOCIAL order were the seniors and children/ babies. But we as a collective have traded our birthright or inheritance, see Jacob and Esau, for a bowl of SLOP. "fill my tummy and meet my needs TODAY...who cares about tomorrow."

    The range of the spectrum either validates the worth of the individual soul, other souls as well (its life experiences/ potential) or it does not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "principles that made us the party of Abraham Lincoln"

    Half-Whitman is delusional like the rest of her GOP pals. Calling today's Republican party the party of Lincoln is like calling McDonald's authentic Scottish cuisine.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, at least, Whiteman kinda realizes that the Republican party has gone awry. It's scary that many republicans think Palin is a viable presidential candidate in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ummm caliana... How interesting. From your comments only two rational conclusions can be drawn. Or you are right and most of the other people are wrong, or you are a nutty job.

    Your calling Obama "Barry Sotero," your references to a unknowable will by the name of "Dog", sorry, "god", and identifying individuals as "souls" make me lean to the latter.

    I hope you still will love me not matter what, though I don't think it means much if you love "everybody".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Darwinreport said" "Calling today's Republican party the party of Lincoln is like calling McDonald's authentic Scottish cuisine."

    Love that! Is that your creation or did you get it from somewhere else?

    Massimo said "...well don’t get me started, I have a list of complaints about him that would take a whole series of long posts to go into, and it wouldn’t be good for my inner spiritual balance."

    WTF? Massimo, are you feeling allright? I am just not used to coupling you and "inner spiritual balance" LOL!

    What I am really worried about is that Obama and the Democrats are not going to be progressive and bold enough.

    First is the bank bailouts, they are coddling the big "talented" bankers with tax payer money, when they could be doing much better dealing with the financial crisis by aiming their efforts to assist homeowners in trouble. Obama made a critical mistake with some of his economic and financial advisors such as Geithner and Summers etc.

    Furthermore, I fear they, Obama and other Democrats, are going to f*%## up health care reform by caving into the private health insurance lobby. What it looks like is going to happen is they are going to mandate that people who don't get health insurance through their employers will have to buy it from those parasitic for-profit health insurance companies. i.e. Romney's Massachusetts plan. Another mandated subsidy to big business!

    Nelson D-NB is saying he is not going to support a public health insurance option because he fears it will out-compete the private healh insurance corps. What a moron, if the gov. can do it better and more efficiently, then let it do it. But no, the Democrats, although much better than the Republicans, are still too much in the pocket of corporate America.

    Final factoid, Obama recieved more political donations from the financial sector than any other candidate, McCain or Clinton included. They knew who to cover for them.

    Sheldon

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here is a little more info. on what I referenced in my comment above. With Democrats like these, we don't need the Republicans to "balance things out".

    What we need is a genuine left social-democratic party in this country to match the fears of the Republican base.

    http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/sen-ben-nelson-d-ne-opposed-public-he

    ReplyDelete
  10. A super majority in the senate could possibly be one of the worst things for the Democratic party.
    It is no surprise (or at least it should be) that legal abortions keep Republicans voting for the GOP, as it is only the GOP who promises to get rid of abortions.
    If you think about it, it would be disastrous for Democrats to "solve" every Democratic issue, as the Democratic party then would not be able to motivate people to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Republicans struggle daily to find a new way to embarass themselves. Michelle Bachmann always does a pretty good job. Seen her latest? Made me cringe.

    http://tinyurl.com/c2rmfy

    ReplyDelete
  12. Caliana might be right when she says the parties moved 'left' on social issues over time.

    With each generation we disregard out-dated and destructive notions of how a person should live and bring in new useful social rules and constraints.

    For example in the 50s-60s interracial marriage was illegal or looked down upon. In the 70s there were issues with IVF. Today it's gay marriage, but I'd find it hard to believe if the next generation takes any part in such homophobia.

    On the whole I would agree with Mike Haubrich. The labels 'left' and 'right' seem very arbitrary when we look at it from an issue-based standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whitman's call to moderate republicans is worthy of praise, yet everything she claims about her party is wrong. That's republicans for you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "On the whole I would agree with Mike Haubrich. The labels 'left' and 'right' seem very arbitrary when we look at it from an issue-based standpoint."

    In my opinion, the terms left and right should really be restricted to questions of political economy, not the social issues Cal is most obsessed about.

    Although rare in modern America, one can be "leftist" in favor of policies benefitting the poor and working class, or against foriegn U.S. interventions and militarism. Take leftist Catholics associated with Catholic Worker organizations, many were militantly against the Vietnam War and anti-capitalist, but still anti-abortion.

    Or take Cuba for another example, a leftist regime that in the past was repressive against homosexuals, but now has lightened up.

    Or take Cusescue's (spelling) Communist Regime in Romania, where abortion was outlawed and women were expected to be baby factories just like Cal advocates.

    But on the other hand, other Eastern block countries had the opposite attitude of coupling abortion rights with women's liberation.

    So, no these social issues don't track exactly on the left-right spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sheldon: "In my opinion, the terms left and right should really be restricted to questions of political economy, not the social issues Cal is most obsessed about."

    But the two things are intricately connected, Sheldon. People cannot live like "there's no tomorrow" economically or morally and expect NO repercussions. One thing has everything to do with the other.

    "Indeed, the greed that decimated the American economy bespeaks a country that, for all its public faith, suffers from an inner spiritual emptiness. When people are empty on the inside they try vainly to compensate with clothes, jewelry, money and fame on the outside."

    This is from "Atheists gain strength from religious intolerance" By SHMULEY BOTEACH
    I don't agree with every bit of his assessments, especially on Islam. His view is far too pacifistic on that count.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710862839&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull#recent

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The Republicans struggle daily to find a new way to embarass themselves. Michelle Bachmann always does a pretty good job. Seen her latest? Made me cringe."

    Yeah, that is awful. Women talking like men. I guess you understood her point tho, didn't you.

    The truth of this matter is that you don't apparently even care what Barry Sotero spends "our" money on. All you can think about is the terms that Michelle chose to use. Money is flying out into the wind never to be seen or accounted for, and 'its all good'.

    If she used those terms or nicer ones, it would not have made a bit of difference to you. You were not listening to what she REALLY had to say anyway.

    You know good and well I absolutely and unapologetically appreciate and support women like Palin and Bachmann.

    It became quite clear after Miss Calfornia lost with the "wrong answer" on a key social issue, (gay marriage), that its not the "economy stupid", its social issues that matter more to Libs THAN THE ECONOMY.

    Cross that line, "we have nothing good to say about you from that point on".

    Yeah, that really strikes me as a groundwork for mature political dialogue....

    Right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You know good and well I absolutely and unapologetically appreciate and support women like Palin and Bachmann."

    That pretty much sums up who you are caliana, a conservative wacko.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You should know better Massimo. The dems will become intoxicated with power and blow it in no time. The solution is not less dems or less reps, but LESS GOVERNMENT!

    ReplyDelete
  19. There was an interesting discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday about why people identify as republicans. One of the guests, I can't recall his name, said that usually after a party loses power as completely as the GOP has recently they have a tendency to try to "go back to the basics", which is usually why they were voted out in the first place. Instead of trying to change strategies, they see their loss as a failure to deliver on their values and so continue to offer more of the same, just more concentrated. Interesting, especially in light of the overall discussion among conservatives during and after the presidential election about getting back to "real" conservativism, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So benny you basically want corporate feudalism?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Jordon: The immediate reaction of most political parties is to get extreme, divide in to factions, indulge in prolonged blame shifting within the party. But over a longer period they are pressured into coming up with better ideas and fresh perspectives.

    Also the last time the Democrats had filibuster proof majorities was in the 95th congress with Jimmy Carter as president. It didn't last for very long and what did they have to show for it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Republicans were not as concerned about wielding essentially absolute power for much of the last eight years, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for part of that time."

    Uh, when during the last eight years did the Republicans ever have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?

    Actually, The Republicans never had that sort of supermajority at any time from 2001, when Bush took office, to 2006, when they lost control of the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Orac,

    thanks for the correction. What I was thinking of was the Reps threatening a "nuclear option" when they were in charge of the Senate, precisely to bypass a Democratic filibuster -- the very thing they are complaining of now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's been a while since I was here last. Is caliana, in fact, the cal of old? From the cock-sure, incurious certainty ("In FACT God put us all where we are today, and He'll use whatever mechanism He needs to to bring 'the collective' to a place of humility once again."), to the behavioral conflation of rationalism with rationalization (i.e. subverting/truncating rational thought to doggedly serve a faith-based world view), it sure appears that way.

    But, while noteworthy, common obstinacy is not particularly interesting. Like an old ammo dump, knowing its location is sufficient, so that one can avoid it and warn others to steer clear.

    This is not to say that cal makes no potentially interesting observations - but it hardly seems worth it to pick one's way across an uncompromisingly toxic minefield to see if a bit of glitter is anything more valuable than feldspar.

    Much more interesting (and the real reason for coming back here) are the exchanges of ideas between thoughtful human beings who are at least as interested in learning as they are in sharing their views. In this context, disagreements tend to lead to constructive dialogues in which greater understanding can be achieved by all parties involved.

    Massimo, I tend to agree with you in broad terms (i.e. your intellectual and ethical allegiances - your commitment to truth-seeking and honesty, in other words), but I do often find specific points of divergence. In this instance, I take partial issue with your statement,

    Whitman seems to be completely oblivious to the obvious fact that both the economic crisis and especially the Iraq war (she forgot “the other war,” apparently) are a result of the insane economic and foreign policies of her own party, policies to which she contributed to some extent, as a member of W.’s cabinet.While it is true that the Republican party platform is more in alignment with market deregulation, corporate welfare, and corporatism in general, in my view it is incorrect to assert that the economic crisis can really be pinned on the Republican party. The flaw in the thinking is the idea that the label necessarily denotes the package's contents. There's been plenty of complicity across the party spectrum. In fact, because of how congressional politics work, party affiliation is not as meaningful as campaign contributors. This is the primary point of entry where the corporate virus (that aspect of the corporate paradigm which is blindly self-serving) enters the federal organism.

    Of course, we are predisposed toward thinking categorically, indeed dualistically, and the two-party system conveniently helps us to do exactly that. But that doesn't make it correct.

    More appropriately, the Republican party represents tissues which provide a more welcoming habitat for the corporate virus, and are therefore more prone to infection. This has mainly to do with dogmatism and a general lack of diversity. Republicans tend not to like to deal with nuance and shades of grey. Rather, by ascribing to a rigid set of principles, they seek to put ethical ambiguity aside and deal with things in absolutist terms.

    But this by necessity means they reference their bedrock principles at every turn, rather than applying reason in order to understand the dynamics of the moment. Thus, they are extraordinarily susceptible, far moreso than their Democratic counterparts, to falling again and again for the false prophets of their ideology, who are nothing more than those who know how to mimic belief in a monolithic ideology in order to exploit actual adherents for their own purposes.

    But regardless of the dynamic that causes this phenomenon, it is critical to address the infectious agent first and foremost, and only excoriate the tissue as a last resort.

    Essentially, I see three main pathways for the government to go:

    (1) succumb to the virus (corporatism/fascism)

    (2)re-tool the virus to serve the greater good of society first and foremost (socialism)

    (3) develop immunity to corporate meddling altogether (virtually impossible, since politics and organized crime are essentially alternate faces of the same coin - but it might look something like libertarianism if it worked)

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Jordan: "...why people identify as republicans."

    First though; Massimo, your paragraph that starts "Really? This is classic Orwell-style newspeak." was exactly on target. I could support all of those (supposed) Republican policies as they were expressed but the Republican Party seemed to violate every single one of them. WTF?

    As for identifying as a Republican, which I used to do, there were some reasons that applied back when I was a young adult. Those same reasons no longer apply which points up some of the changes in both parties. In the '50s and '60s I associated the Democrats with racist bigots like George Wallace (D-Alabama) and Orval Faubus (D-Arkansas). Also with practices like the union goons who beat people with axe handles and baseball bats, and union bosses who were more like the Mafia. These were not things I wanted to be associated with so I went with the Republicans. And ideas like “less government interference with our lives” appealed to me. But now we see the Republicans using (or trying to use) government to interfere with family planning, to intrude upon the lives of people whose chosen partner doesn't match their (the Republicans) notion of correctness. That doesn't seem like less interference to me. I have looked around and tried to find a political party that is liberal where I'm liberal and conservative where I'm conservative. I thought maybe I had found it with the libertarians but after the Libertarian Party selected that a-hole Bob Barr as their candidate in the recent election, I've just about given up on them too. Damn, politically homeless again.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Also the last time the Democrats had filibuster proof majorities was in the 95th congress with Jimmy Carter as president. It didn't last for very long and what did they have to show for it?"

    I don't remember Carter well, think I was early mid elementary back then. But one of my older sisters (she was a flight attendant for Delta at that time) said he was the last Dem she ever voted for. What were housing loans going for 14 to 18 %?

    bwah ha ha!

    Carter, I think, smiles with a big, old friendly smile, but there's destruction and chaos in the wake of everything his finger touches. He displays a "unifying attitude" but his true spiritual self is anything but!

    My sis prayed that God would show her specifically who she should vote for in the next election. She just really didn't know. Then one day Ronald Reagan and Nancy walk on to her flight and she happened to be the first class flight attendant that day.

    what happened next, was nothing short of unbelievable..

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Caliana- The thing that happened next wouldn't be the US suffering through 8 years of the Reagan administration, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Caliana- The thing that happened next wouldn't be the US suffering through 8 years of the Reagan administration, would it?"

    Suffering? You've never lived under communism have you? Those who have usually do not recommend it. The press who do vomit that kind of nonsense, they haven't lived under communism either.

    They were all trained, educated by the same bunch of no nothings tho.

    Read the article under the 'humorless conservatives' thread on 'WHY Lib states are the least "free".' Libs simply cannot handle the truth or the freedom that goes along with it.

    And no, Reagan GRACING THE USA with his honorable presence for the next eight years was not ALL THAT HAPPENED.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks caliana. I'm happy to see that other people see the same reality I do.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You can wear rose-colored glasses and see reality in rosy hues, but that doesn't mean it actually is that way.

    We all see the same reality. Some people are just (curious|honest|brave) enough to examine the lenses they've been handed, and stop viewing it through them when it becomes clear that they distort, rather than clarify, the view.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.