By John Brummett
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor told me a few weeks ago that there ought to be a Pulitzer Prize in exploring and exposing the deeply cynical elements in the contemporary Republican Party.
He referred to forces that are trying systematically either to destroy the government to take it over or to take over the government to destroy it.
I didn’t think any more about that until a few days ago. That was when a fellow named Michael Lofgren went out and did pretty much what Pryor said.
Lofgren had a big advantage. He worked on Capitol Hill for 28 years as a Republican congressional staff aide, mostly on defense and budget issues.
He quit in June because, as he wrote in an epic and widely buzzed-about article published last week for truthout.com, the Republican Party he once embraced, of Dwight David Eisenhower and a noble and consensus-seeking conservatism, had been taken over by anti-government minions of corporate interests practicing cynical politics to achieve ignoble objectives.
His point is that both our parties stink, and fail us, but that we need to understand that the Republicans have been taken over by their lunatic fringe and warrant more specific and extensive blame than that bestowed by a broad swipe against politics in general.
Lofgren wrote that these corporate minions co-opted religious fundamentalists to build a political coalition that foments a dysfunctional government and then disparages for political gain that which it has purposely fomented.
They get away with it for three reasons, he wrote: Democrats are cowardly and inept and corporate-beholden, if to a lesser brazenness, themselves; the media tell less than the simple truth in a false pursuit of bipartisan fairness and balance; and “low-information” voters declare a pox on both parties and end up voting with scant consideration, usually for Republicans who present themselves as more anti-government than Democrats, or, in other words, more genuinely disdainful of the very mess they actually made.
These corporate minions do all that, Lofgren wrote, so they can gain office to cut taxes for rich people so that there won’t be enough money for Medicare and Social Security, which they don’t believe in, but only for defense, which they do. They will assert that business tax cuts will create jobs, although, he wrote, that’s not their real point and Apple sits on $76 billion amid idling American employment.
Lofgren wrote that these contemporary Republicans have evolved over four decades to the point that persons who once would have been dismissed as crackpots, such as Michele Bachmann, now compose the credible and vital center.
All of this amounts, Lofgren wrote, to a modern American Republicanism that is less a functioning political party than an “apocalyptic cult,” one invoking a dire fate, something akin to the end of the free world, if the other side is not stopped.
That cult attitude, he explained, destroys any hope for the kind of collegiality of parliamentary practice that our nation’s founders envisioned. That’s particularly so in the Senate, where nearly everything now gets stymied by filibuster rather than deliberated for practical or wise solution.
The debt-ceiling nonsense, by which Republicans held hostage a simple and essential procedure that had been executed more than 80 times more or less perfunctorily, was tailor-made for an apocalyptic force fomenting a dysfunctional government it could then assail.
Lofgren’s article is long and perhaps a tad overwrought in a sentence or two, but one that every thinking and caring American ought to read and consider.
It is well-written and superbly argued. But, let’s face it, its greatest currency is that it comes from a fed-up Republican insider.
You ought to be able to find this article on-line at truthout.com or by doing a search for “Mike Lofgren” to find other links. The name is all over cyberspace right now.
——-
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.
September 8th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Well, I could go on a long rant about the historical/cultural factors which produced the current make-up of the Republican Party, but I don’t have space. . ..
But I will point out one FALSEHOOD in this column, a myth that is continuously perpetrated by our liberal superiors:
” ‘low-information’ voters declare a pox on both parties and end up voting with scant consideration, usually for Republicans”
This is rubbish. The truth is, Obama handily won voters who held Post Graduate degrees, BUT he also won by WIDE MARGINS voters who were less educated (i.e High School diploma or less.) Exit polling substantiates my claim.
The modern Democrat Party is a coalition of intellectual/cultural elites and uneducated/uninformed voters. The disparity among Obama voters was also true when applied to INCOME as Obama carried both the HIGHEST and LOWEST income groups.
The Democrat Party is the Party of EXTREMES: highly educated/uneducated and high income/low income voters.
FWIW – I see many similarities between the modern Democrat coalition, and the coalition Julius Caesar and his fellow Populares cobbled together to overthrow the Roman Republic. . . . But that’s for a later discussion . . .
September 8th, 2011 at 7:21 am
take all the space you need. this isn’t newsprint. we can keep scrolling down, as long as you hold our interest.
September 8th, 2011 at 9:52 am
” highly educated/uneducated and high income/low income voters.”
I maybe highly educated but I definitely don’t consider myself to be high income since I am in public education.
Your brush stroke is too broad.
September 8th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
@Roger,the brush stroke is not mine, and it is not too broad. The groups I listed are in 4 different categories:
1. High Income Voters ($200K +)
2. Low Income Voters (Less than $30K)
3. Post Gradutae Degrees
4. High School Education or less
Obama carried voters who fit into any one of the above categories.
September 8th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I often wonder how the Democrat Party can maintain cohesion considering that politics is often more about culture than actual policy – and that the Democrat Party is made up of disparate cultural groups . .
I mean, what does a wealthy, white, Hollywood producer who lives in Beverly Hills and vacations in Cannes possibly have in common with an African American who lives in the inner city, and barely scrapes by on a meager income? Yet both vote Democrat.
The Democrat coalition is really mystifying to me.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
@Brummett, unfortunately I doubt I would hold your interest. . .
But this is a much simplified version:
Too many GOP’ers still believe the year is 1981. They want Reagan in the White House, increased defense spending, and tax cuts. They believe this worked for the Republicans politically (49 state landside), provided 3 decades of economic growth, and vanquished the Soviet Union.
While they might be partially correct – our country faces challenges far different than what we faced in 1981 – and the old Reagan playbook is simply not applicable to our times.
As circumstantial evidence of what I am talking about – try calling a conservative foundation in Washington DC. . . When you are placed on hold, you won’t hear the typical elevator music, but instead will hear recordings of Reagan’s old speeches.
I think it is a truism that political parties/ideological movements often lag behind economic and cultural developments. Which is why many Civil Rights leaders still behave as if Bull Connor roams the streets of Birmingham, Republicans wax nostalgic for Ronald Reagan, and anti-War protestors use the same slogans employed in 1968.
September 9th, 2011 at 7:54 am
I shook my head at the conclusion of the Republican debate. Why a fine man like Huntsman is overlooked for the likes of Perry and Bachman, is beyond me. Is it because he’s smart and therefore falls into the category of “educated elite”?
Capt. said..
“I mean, what does a wealthy, white, Hollywood producer who lives in Beverly Hills and vacations in Cannes possibly have in common with an African American who lives in the inner city, and barely scrapes by on a meager income? Yet both vote Democrat. ‘
It’s easy, they aren’t conned into supporting someone that “big money” spends so much effort to portray as “a real American”. Too many people let salesmen like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. do their thinking for them. This political and civic laziness so pleases the Koch brothers. Now there’s a couple of high income voters who didn’t vote for Obama.
So tell me, what do the Koch brothers have in common with high school educated people who find themselves in a disappearing middle class?
September 9th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@Pilsberry – Um, and who is doing your thinking for you? Your comment is just a regurgitation of liberal talking points that I have heard 1,000 times from other liberals. At least come up with something original. . .
But let me try to address some of the points you made:
#1 “Big money.” Big money backs both parties. I suspect most Democrat voters would be shocked to learn that Wall Street heavily backed Obama. Obama’s 2012 war chest is one reason I think he has a good chance of getting reelected.
#2 You can point to the Koch brothers. And I could point to George Soros. BUt doing so would be anecdotal and statistically irrelevant.
What IS statistically relevant is that voters who earn over $200k a year are trending Democrat. Obama carried these voters in 2008.
#3. As for political and civic “laziness” – this is a problem that plagues Democrat voters more so than Republicans. Any pollster will tell you that a large segment of the Democrat Party does not pay attention to a political campaign until the closing weeks.
And most people believe that mid-term elections benefit Republicans, because Republican voters always turn out – - -whereas many Democrat voters stay at home.
#4. Disappearing Middle Class. One thing is for certain about the Middle Class . . .they are “disappearaing” from Blue States and moving to Red States in droves.
Ironically, this “disappearing” act actually entrenches the Democrat Party in blue states like California.
#5. I do agree with you re: the GOP field. I don’t see anyone that I am overly excited about. . .
September 9th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
it seems democrats get a lot of rich guy votes even as they advocate higher taxes for those rich guys. on the other hand, republicans have to oppose higher taxes on rich guys to hang on to the ones they have, or so it seems. i do not see how it excuses republicans for being held up by their rich guys that democrats have a healthier and more progressive relationship with theirs. see what i’m saying?
September 9th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
@Brummett – My hunch is that many wealthy people who trend Democrat do so for cultural reasons – - – they often live in bi-coastal areas and don’t like the Southern, social conservative/Christian wing of the GOP.
The GOP opposes high taxes because opposition to tax increases generally unifies the entire party. For decades, the GOP playbook has been to tar the Democrats as the ‘tax and spend’ party. How do Republicans tar the Democrats with the “high taxes” label when they themselves raise taxes? Why voluntarily give up a campaign issue? The Democrats have the same problem with entitlements.
I also think the memory of 1992 is permanently embossed in the GOP mind – - remember all those “Read My Lips” ads that Clinton used to excoriate Bush the Elder?
September 10th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Capt,
This article is about the GOP. FWIW, I responded BEFORE I read the Lofgren piece. What you refuse to acknowledge is that one of your own, so close to the action, is affirming what you accuse me of “regurgitating”.
BTW I am an independent. I think for my self, I vote for the candidates that I feel will do the best job. I know this complicates things for people that live in a black and white world.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:05 am
pilsberry: here is how i’ve got the captain scoped out: he’s smart enough and fair-minded enough to realize his repubs are the more absurd obstructionists right now, but he so despises what he perceives as a pervasive and long-embedded leftward cultural and political bias (which is pretty much gone) that he feels obliged to keep flailing away at it. he’s really got it in for hollywood. i think rob reiner movies give him hives. it’s not a lot different from my inverse of that: democrats make me ill, but republicans may be iller. and now, i’m sure, a word from the captain, huffily saying he can speak speaking for himself, thank you:
September 10th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Any prayer for a third, centrist party in my lifetime? That gives about 20-30 years if I’m lucky. I used to really hope for this 5 or 10 years ago, but every year I get more pessimistic about the chances.
I like the mixture of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism suggested previously; can it work in practice?
September 10th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
The thing I’d like the captain to take away is that if the GOP wants to win the ever important independent vote, it needs to find a way to nominate people like Huntsman (even if he believes in science) as opposed to Perry or Bachmann.
This article points out what is preventing that from happening. So don’t grind on the Dems and libs. Just fix the GOP.
And since when did Hollywood have a significant impact? I don’t understand the fixation. The movie industry is full of left leaning folks. Small taters.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
@Brummett, yes, I can speak for myself. But alas, today is college football saturday. And since football is much more important than politics, I decided to devote my time today to posting on various football message boards.
@pilsberry. The movie industry is not “small taters.” Go read up on how a little indie film like “Sideways” influenced the sales of Pinot Noir and Merlot. . . the film industry has a huge worldwide impact on opinion, purchasing choices, and mores. If I had to choose between conservatives controlling cultural instituions or the government, I’d definitely choose control of cultural instituions.
Your snide remark about science (again, showing your lack of orginiality by spweing out liberal cliches) is a tantalizing target for me, but alas, this is college football saturday. . . .please read JOnah Goldbergs comments on this http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275903/re-anti-science-smear-jonah-goldberg
September 12th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Captain,
Sideways was a great movie, but I have always enjoyed red wine. So again, I didn’t need Hollywood to tell me that.
Snide remark? Why so? Huntsman was the only one to admit actually believing in science just a little bit. Again, why wasn’t he the headline the next day as a potential contender?
As for originality, as long as the GOP keeps promoting these types of candidates, you can expect to hear the same criticism. Sorry if I’ve run out of new ways to express my opinion.
I’m begging the GOP to nominate someone I can truly consider voting for. It would be nice to have a difficult choice this time round.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:05 am
many if not most of our catch phrases and cultural cues come from the movies. make my day and show me the money and offer he can’t refuse and, well, you know. as to this merlot-pinot noir issue, i’m with the captain there. a lot of people went around drinking merlot because they knew it was red and suitable for meat and it was easier to say than cabernet sauvignon. merlot got so popular that too much got put out too young, if you’ll permit me to appear sophisticated. the sideways scene sent a cultural signal to all these merlot people that maybe they weren’t as cool as they thought, and so they endeavored to find out how to spell and locate this pinot noir the character loved so much. so, yes, pinot noir got hot because of this movie. i leave you with what some writer once said: wine should be red and it should be burgundy. that’s pinot noir. if the pinot is good, nothing compares. salmon with pinot — oh, dear lord, it’s transformative. we will talk about the heavier-duty shiraz and the buttery chardonnary next time.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Ok, so I read the Goldberg article. I think you’re missing my point and reacting to just “another liberal spew”.
I’m just trying to point out that the GOP doesn’t seem to like some candidates who seem viable to me. Why is that? So, regarding Huntsman, the science issue was one where he was fundamentally different from the others.
Not trying to pick a fight about the whole science thingy.
September 12th, 2011 at 10:01 am
I prefer Syrahs myself, or blends containing it (try Apothic Red, tasty and reasonbly priced).
I’m with pilsberry, I see nothing in the GOP “frontrunners” that I like. Then again, last election, I didn’t like much between Clinton and Obama, but Bill Richardson couldn’t seem to gain anyone’s interest, save my own. Neither side can seem to get it.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
@ Brummett- Ok, now you are showing off! lol I’m more like the THomas Hayden Church character whe it comes to wine. . .it all tastes good to me. . .
I’ve actually done the “Sideways” tour . ..Sideways really boosted tourism in that area. . . And I recommend the Hitching Post-
@Pilsbury – For years the Left has claimed that the Right was anti-science, anti-intellectual. I think the truth is that ideologues tend to have confirmation bias and pick and choose scientific date which supports their political worldview.
Ironically, the decades old charge that GOPers were dumb, anti-intellectual, and have “sloped heads” has had the perverse effect of innoculating dimwits like Sarah Palin against such accusations. . . ..