By John Brummett
News item: The Republican Party has everything going for it except a competent presidential candidate.
How can that be?
The heart of contemporary Republicanism is economic conservatism that bridges Wall Street elites and tea party simpletons while bringing along politically pliable religious conservatives.
I could do it with one hand tied behind my back.
You need only to stand up for tax cuts for the wealthy, spending cuts in programs for poor and old people and deregulation of the natural environment, health care and business generally.
That way, you see, the investor class can be freed to restore the gilded age we enjoyed until late 2008 when Wall Street was creating lucrative, risk-free financial instruments based on inflated housing prices and easy mortgages people couldn’t afford.
Assuaging the church people doesn’t require actually going to church — Ronald Reagan didn’t — or even behaving yourself, since Louisiana U.S. Sen. David Vitter and former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, among others, didn’t.
You simply need to oppose a woman’s right to choose and to pray in public against godless liberalism.
All of this can be executed with all hat and no saddle, which is a Texas metaphor for looking as if you could ride a horse even if you’ve never been astride one.
Let me demonstrate by articulating the Republican essence: Cut taxes. Cut spending. Balanced budget amendment. Embrace the marketplace. Global cooling. Government is not the solution, but the problem. Save the unborn child. Secure these borders. Organized labor is run by fat-cat bosses. Uncertainty is the problem. Christian nation. Vote for me.
It’s a snap.
Remarkably, though, the Republicans can’t find anybody who can sufficiently master this superficial blather to emerge as a solid presidential candidate to take out a Barack Obama who’d be a sitting duck if the Republicans had anybody who could shoot a sitting duck.
Last week word went out that rich hedge-fund Republicans were touting rotund New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as the latest savior.
Christie is for cutting taxes and cutting spending and deregulating Wall Street. He does not like public employee unions. He has compiled a bit of an actual record in Jersey in these regards.
They say he lights up a room the way Fred Thompson used to.
So what’s so lacking in the existing field that the rich guys would be desperate?
Mitt Romney looks like a president and probably could actually perform as one. But economic conservatives whisper that he is a compromiser who secretly wishes more people had health insurance. Can’t have that. He is susceptible this way because, over the years, he’s been on all sides of all issues, depending on what was in it for him politically. Religious conservatives, particularly in the Bible Belt base, don’t know what to make of his Mormonism.
Rick Perry was last week’s savior, but then he got caught not believing in Social Security, which is a general election problem in, say, Florida. Then he made the unforgivable error of thinking that innocent children of undocumented immigrants deserve to be helped along in their education.
Michele Bachmann had a week or two of seriousness, but then she didn’t want young women to get vaccinated against the virus that can lead to cervical cancer because a woman told her the vaccination can make a child mentally retarded. That was the first any doctors or scientists had heard of that.
A prediction: If Christie gets in, it’ll come out that he once, in a weak moment, said something tolerant about immigrants, or something else unacceptable.
It’s being a modern-day Democrat that ought to be hard, trying to explain that some deficit spending is necessary and that some people ought to pay higher taxes and that jobs are important but not so much that we destroy the earth and that not all Muslims are bad and that maybe Israel isn’t right about everything.
Actually, contemporary Republicanism is even easier than I said before. All you really have to say is, “He’s Barack Obama and I’m not.”
But the current characters keep flubbing the line. They keep saying, “He’s Barack Obama and I’m nuts.”
——-
John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of “High Wire,” a book about Bill Clinton’s first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com.
October 3rd, 2011 at 3:03 am
“tea party simpletons”
- ever been to a Left-wing rally? Simple minded. . . crazy. . . in need of a bath.
“spending cuts in programs for poor and old people”
- You mischaracterize this, of course.
“Remarkably, though, the Republicans can’t find anybody who can sufficiently master this superficial blather to emerge as a solid presidential candidate”
- Alas, Brummett’s correct on this point.
This column reinforces my belief that Brummett is an awesome political handicapper. . .but illogical and terrible when it comes to public policy.
Methinks that in another time and places, that Brummett, with his excellent analytical skills coupled with his undying love for the socialist state . .would have made an excellent Stasi agent.
October 3rd, 2011 at 3:22 am
I think Chris Christie is the real deal, but he’s just in his first term as Governor and he’s just not ready for Prime Time in 2012.
But there’s much to like about him:
#1 He unites the Party and energizes the GOP base
#2 He doesn’t have a Southern/Texas accent. I think he plays well in places like PA, MI, OH.
#3 I think he appeals to independent voters
#4 He hails from a reliably Blue State which indicates he might be able to expand the electoral map for the GOP
If Obama wins reelection in 2012 .. . I predict Christie will carry 38-40 states in 2016. I think the American public generally likes a change in style after 8 years, and Christie is definitely the stylistic opposite of Obama. . . and after 16 years of profligate spending, the public should be ready for someone who talks tough on runaway spending . . .
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:22 am
Rick Perry was right when he called Social Socurity a “Ponzi Scheme.” There is only one element different. The investors in Ponzi Schemes usually invest of their own free will when those who partake in Social Security have no choice. I think that even voters in Florida realize that the baby boomers will end Social Security as we know it if nothing is done. THE DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE TO JOIN GREECE’S FATE.
October 3rd, 2011 at 11:15 am
Let me help you simpletons. Stasi = domestic intelligence agency of East Germany’s RIGHT-wing government. Ponzi = oh just look it up, for God’s sake. You sound like a moron comparing this to Social Security, which by the way benefits Arkansas seniors more than almost any other state’s seniors! Social Security = a tax on workers for the retirement of workers. Employers also must contribute in return for the worker’s labor.
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@Halting – I don’t think it is accurate to equate Social Security with a Ponzi Scheme. SS operates much differently than the classic Ponzi scheme . . .
@Blake – Actually, most people would characterize East Germany as a LEFT-wing, communist regime. However, I think it is often silly to label authoritarian regimes as either “Left” or Right.” While the rhetoric is often different, the result is generally the same. The classic case is Mussolini who originally started out as a man of the “Left” but ended up presiding over a “Rightist” regime.
My theory is that Progressivism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and Nazism are all branches of the same ideological tree .. a tree which first sprouted up in 18th Century Jacobin France. While these various branches are often at odds with each other -they share the same core belief in the primacy of the state over the individual.
Edmund Burke, the founder of modern Conservative thought, was the first to see this coming when he condemned the rise of Jacobinism in France. Burke was ahead of his time, initially suffered a loss in reputation for his opinions- but history has vindicated him. I find it ironic that left-wing nutcases like Roseanne Barr are advocating for the return of the guillotine . . .
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
@Blake. Oh, and welcome to the board. Insults are most welcome. I hope you stick around. It sometimes gets tiresome just having drscherrey, halting and myself pound on Brummett on a daily basis.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:47 am
No, most would acknowledge that East Germany’s government was overwhelmingly controlled by former Nazis, who were right wing white supremacists. West Germany was ruled by the socialist SPD for the second half of the 20th century, just for the record, though it too is sometimes mischaracterized as some kind of free-market foil to the imagined communist regime in East Germany.
But I guess if you are able to stretch all the way to calling fascism a child of 19th century French intellectualism, which “most” credit with concepts such as idealism, socialism and syndicalism, you could stretch “right-wing white supremacist ideology” into “LEFT-wing, communist regime.”
October 4th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Thank you for the welcome and let’s not take reality for insults. Anyone calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is empirically sounding like a moron. Facts are facts.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:52 am
My response has been cleared out so here it is again, captain. “Most” scholars would view East Germany’s government in the context of the number of former Nazis in charge, that is, right-wing white supremacists. The government had all the trappings of a right-wing system up until a populist revolution dislodged it. And wow, attributing fascism to French enlightenment is well, wow. But I suppose if the foundation of socialism and idealism and syndicalism screams “similar ideological background as fascism” to you then “right-wing white supremacist reactionary regime” could mean “Left-wing communist regime”.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:26 am
sic ‘em, blake. if you had fascism and racism in your background, you might be trying to rewrite history too.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
let me refine what i just said: if your general political heritage had racism and fascism in its background …. nothing personal, cap and halting.
October 4th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
@Blake, The Leaders of the GDR Ulbiright, Hoenkker etc. etc. were all Communists who either fled into exile or were imprisoned when the Nazi’s took power. I have no doubt that many in the GDR government were former Nazi’s – but the same was true of West Germany. In an authoritarian system, many people join the Party simply for career advancement. Please remember, Patton got into trouble for not removing former Nazi’s from positions of authority in occupied Germany – - – Patton asserted that it would be difficult to maintain basic government services without them.
But to deny that East Germany was a communist regime is nonsense on stilts. You would be better off denying that gravity does not exist.
October 4th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@Blake, as for French Jacobinism – - -(and I use the term “Jacobinism very loosely) . . .I do think that the French Revolution and Jacobinism was a catalyst for producing the various “isms” previously discussed. It’s just that each of these “isms” manifested themselves in conformity to the culture of the region in which they took hold.
Jacobinism produced Napoleon in France – - but wasn’t Napoleon just a reversion back to Charles XIV and the Ancien’ Regime?
The Russian Revolution (communism) produced Stalin – - but wasn’t he just a more extreme version of Ivan the Terrible?
The Spanish Civil War (fascism) gave us Franco – - – but wasn’t Franco just a reversion back to an arch-Catholic monarch like Philip II?
Nazism gave us Hitler – But wasn’t Hitler just a very extreme version of Prussian militarism and Germanic anti-semitism that had existed for centuries?
The French Revolution was the cataylst for these “isms”. .. even though they manifested themselves in different ways . . .
October 4th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
@Brummett – Are you saying that conservatism has “racism and fascism” in its background?
I definitely take issue with that.
Weren’t the abolitionists basically 19th century version of today’s Evangelical Christians? And please compare Woodrow Wilson’s stance on race with Calvin Coolidge. And consider the Progressive movements admiration for the Eugenics movement. And Southern Segregationists were also ardent supporters of FDR and the New Deal.
But again, much of this depends on time, place, context.
Conservatism has produced its share of bozo’s . .. but so has Progressivism.
My political heritage stands on the shoulders of Cicero, Edmund Burke, John Adams, Dwight Eisenhower. People who were practical, prudent, and understood that government action often produced unintended consequences.
October 4th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
@Brummett- As for the assertion that conservatives are fascists, this is laughable. I sincerely bleive the American Left has an authoritarian strain which does not exist on the American Right.
If you attend a Tea Party event, you’ll find a mixture of normal people, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. But these people will be quoting Jefferson, Madison, and will be found carrying pocket constitutions. And these people will also be discussing ways in which to LIMIT government power- – -the opposite of fascism/authoritarian tendencies.
Attend a Left Wing rally and you’ll find a mixture of normal people, kooks, and conspiracy theorists (plus purple hair, piercings, and people who need to shower and shave.) But these people will be wearing “Che” T-shirts, citing works from some authoritian figure, and discussing ways in which to INCREASE government power – — in coorelation with fascist/authoritarian tendencies. . . .
October 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
yes.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
i didn’t say conservatives are fascists. how is it you write so much better than you read? i said conservatism has fascism in its background. and how people look is irrelevant to the currency of their ideas. how petty and prejudicial of you to stoop to attacks on appearance. chris christie may be a fatty, but i think, even as i disagree with him on economics, that he’s been a good governor.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“conservatism has fascism in its background”
- I don’t agree with this. American Conservatism traditionally has been about prudence and limiting government power – the exact opposite of what fascism represents.
“how petty and prejudicial of you to stoop to attacks on appearance.”
– I was just stating the OBVIOUS that people at LeftWing rallies often look different than people at tea Party rallies. But yes, I plead guilty to judging people who have forgotten how to use a bar of soap – - it’s disgusting.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“general political heritage had racism”
- The charge that conservatism is inherently racist drives me crazy. Conservative ideas are timeless and transcend race.
Nevertheless, there are Conservatives who are racist, and at times Conservatives have embraced racist policies and politics. . .Jesse helms comes to mind, and Goldwaters opposition to the Civil Rights Act etc. etc.
But the same is also true of Liberals, at various times and places in our history. Just look at the 2008 Democrat Presidential Primary – - -wasn’t this contest really more about competing Demographic groups than actual policy differences? A contest between upscale whites and minorities who supported Obama vs. downscale whites and women who supported Hillary? Compare this to the 2012 GOP race which is much more about philosophical differences i.e. moderate Republicans (Romney) vs. conservative Republicans (Perry, Bachmann).
And isn’t Obama subtly playing the race card by trying to gin up support among Blacks and Hispanics in a desparate attempt to save his flailing Presidency?
When it comes to race and racism, both liberals and conservatives have their failings. But it seems that only conservatives get stuck with the “racist” label.
October 6th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“As for the assertion that conservatives are fascists, this is laughable. I sincerely bleive the American Left has an authoritarian strain which does not exist on the American Right.”
Wow…and that explains why you are at a loss when I suggest that East Germany, with the intolerant, closed society run by Nazis and a shadow police force, designed to further nationalistic goals with fear and intimidation, was right-wing.
“wasn’t Hitler just a very extreme version of Prussian militarism and Germanic anti-semitism that had existed for centuries?”
No, not “just” at all. Conservatives love their cozy and strained simplistic analyses, don’t they?
“wasn’t Napoleon just a reversion back to Charles XIV and the Ancien’ Regime?”
No, not even close. The dictator who spread the Napoleonic Revolution across Europe vs. the inward-looking, regressive monarchical Ancien Regime.
“My political heritage stands on the shoulders of Cicero, Edmund Burke, John Adams, Dwight Eisenhower. ”
Dwight Eisenhower spins in his grave while Dick Cheney makes Halliburton billions.
“moderate Republicans (Romney) ”
I’m sorry, but NO. Maybe in his former life he was a center-leaning conservative. His current radical ideas include overturning Roe v Wade and protecting the wealthy from 90’s-era taxation levels. I suppose you believe Bush/Cheney were moderates too? That McCain was capable of a coherent foreign policy? That Sarah Palin would have been a steady second-in command? Tell us more, please. This is very enlightening.
October 6th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
@Blake, You only lose credibility when you deny that East Germany was a Left-wing communist state. The Leaders of the GDR were communist.
But alas, as I have often said, distinctions between labels such as “Left” and “Right” are often meaningless, especially when applied to authoritarian states. Your problem is that you are so biased, you automatically associate any form of tyranny with the “Right.”
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
October 6th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
@Blake – I stand by my Napoleon comment. Were their differences between Napoleon and the Ancien Regime? Sure there were. But I think Napoleon had much more in common with Louis XIV than he did with the French Revolutionaries who overthrew the Bourbon dynasty.
Basically, the French Revolution swapped out one monarch for another.
Heck, Napoleon even declared himself “Emperor”, was given a crown, bestowed royal titles on his family members etc. etc.