Thursday, October 16, 2008

Vote for a better Republican Party

I’ve been tempted to categorize Republican politicians and voters into a few basic groups: 1) Mean and/ or power-hungry, like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Carl Rove; 2) Stupid, like Sarah Palin, or any other snake handling toothless inbred in America; 3) Religious zealot, like Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, or anyone who attends an Assembly of God church; 4) Deranged ideologue, like Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, or Timothy McVeigh or; 5) Uninformed or Willfully ignorant, like Sarah Palin, or the 31% of Americans who can’t name the Vice president (not to imply that none of those people are Democrats, but ultimately, if you are that ignorant, do you really have a valid political identity?)

But I’ve met enough Republican voters who don’t fit neatly into any of those groups to think that perhaps I ought to rethink my thinking on that, or add at least one new category, or stop putting labels on people (perish the thought!). So here’s the latest entry into The Human Animal Republican Taxonomic Schematic:

6)Well-meaning-but-myopic-and-glassy-eyed-libertarian-leaning-government-mistrusting ideologues, like, well, maybe John McCain, and quite a number of other people I know. These are people who identify themselves as fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and tend to have libertarian ideas about the role of government in economics, business regulations, and tax policy. They are also generally concerned about the preservation of civil liberties and believe that laws should be based in Constitutional principle. They are concerned about the environment. Basically, they like the Republican Party platform.

I do too, kind of. Or at least, it’s not that bad; a valid political philosophy.

The problem is that when you vote for Republicans, you’re not voting for the platform, you’re voting for Republican politicians; you’re voting for what Republicans do, as exemplified by the past eight years of fiscal recklessness, socially regressive policies, disastrous economic policies, the shredding of civil protections and the rule of law, the expansion of culture wars, the ignoring of science and research in shaping environmental and educational policy, the shredding of environmental protections, the widening of the class gap, expanded power of corporations, expanded power of the executive branch, appointment of very dangerous Supreme Court Justices, and the total alienation of America from the rest of the world. If you think the Bush administration was okay, there’s probably nothing I can do for you.

“But McCain isn’t Bush”, you say, “He’s for “Change”, a real “Maverick”? Here’s the thing: we knew those were the sorts of things Bush would do, because we know what Republicans do. Moreover, Republicans knew who George Bush was, and they put him in office anyway, and supported his policies across the board. McCain, the “Maverick”, famously voted with him 95% of the time.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a well-known group of gay Republican supporters, have been roundly criticized for continuing to support a party whose unwritten platform includes keeping them socially repressed and disadvantaged. They, like the aforementioned Human Animal Group 6, want to remain loyal to the party in order to “change it from within”, or get it back to its foundational principles, or whatever. But clearly, such an approach is counterproductive. What these people are doing is enabling the party to pander to fringe elements while still maintaining their blind loyalty, in effect, moving the party away from having to confront the issue of gay equality.

This is what happens when you accept all that crap from the Republican Party, simply because you admire their foundational principles, to which they fail to adhere. You enable them to continue to promote policies with which you disagree and still get your vote.

But it gets much worse.

McCain has not shown any restraint when it comes to pandering to the extremist segments of his party.

Most notably, by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain has squandered an opportunity to move his party away from the worst and most fundamentally un-American elements in our society. The religious and philosophical context which shaped her political and cultural identity, embodied by the Assembly of God church, represent the most intolerant, hateful, and, frankly, looniest agents of right-wing extremity.

But my point is not that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, but that in choosing Palin, McCain has spectacularly failed to address his party’s alliance with, and dependence upon, these extremist elements, and has instead embraced and emboldened them.

When the McCain campaign goes around making absurd claims that Obama associates with terrorists, in a post 9/11 environment, they are stirring up hornets and racists, or worse, assassins.

McCain has not been a “Maverick” in this campaign. To the contrary, like Bush, he has failed miserably to run an honest campaign and stand up for everything that is good about America, and instead has embraced the worst elements among us. He therefore does not deserve to be President.

McCain had a historic opportunity, after the failed, corrupt, and wearisome Bush administration, to take the high road and monumentally improve his party by moving it back toward its foundational principles. In a profoundly woeful lack of judgment, he relinquished this opportunity, and he should be held accountable by all reasonable Republican voters.

So a vote for Obama is a vote for a better Republican party. A vote for Obama sends a message that you, as a decent American, are no longer willing to compromise all of your core social, environmental, and cultural values to vote for a party whose platform has been historically, consistently, and systematically violated by the very people who purport to uphold it. A vote for Obama is a vote against the kind of Republicanism that has met with spectacular failure, and must change or come to an end.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Psychiatrists define maverick (see wikipedia) as schizophrenic, self centered, unwilling to belong, party-of-self, suppozably centrist, like Nixon, Giuliani, Dole (all selfish womanizers). Avenge Abramoff. We know McCain' retired Senate buddies did whatever Abramoff did. Jack's only sin was beeing too young and too successful and Jewish. Call him Maverdick.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, a vote for Obama is also a vote for Socialism in the United States. The process is already well underway, and will certainly accelerate under an Obama administration. Obama understands populism, the politics of popular discontent, and has repeatedly used comparisons between CEOs and the so-called "average worker" to promote his flawed world view. In his widely hailed January 20th, 2008 speech, he proclaimed ""We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months." Obama believes that we have a
moral defecit when individuals are entitled to the wealth created by their own productivity?
Apparently, the government decide how much wealth an individual should keep, and how much should
be confiscated and given away to people who "need it more". At a time when we are busy nationalizing private enterprise and the financial system, who better than Obama, the great champion of the poeple, to lead the sheep to slaughter?

Perhaps most disturbing to this glassy-eyed-libertarian is the seeming acceptance of this
ideology by a majority of Americans. It was not very long ago that limousines and big houses
were to be admired. They were symbols of what was possible, and of the opportunity afforded to all Americans to engage in free enterprise, take risks, and become rich themselves. And, if not
for you, then maybe one day for your children. Class envy was never an issue in America, where people came from all over the world to pursue their dreams. But limousines and big houses have
become symbols of greed, of the lavish lifestyles lead by evil profit seeking CEOs, who squander their workers productivity for their own gain. Somewhere Americans became infected with
a false sense of entitlement. Big houses and limousines were no longer just for the wealthy,
they were for everyone. Everyone deserves a place to live, after all. Everyone deserves to be
healthy. And, everyone deserves to be happy, right? And indeed, we can all afford for everyone
to make more money, if only we relax the requirements a little. No need to verify employment, here
is your loan, sir. No need for a down payment, here is your loan, sir. Indeed, it was this
sense of entitlement that lead us directly to the current situation. In the 1990s, during the
last major recession, it was progressives who called for an easing of lending restrictions, because "everyone deserves the American dream of owning their own home".

But the entitlement disease goes back much, much further. All the way back to the last great financial crisis that America faced, in the year 1929. The stock market had crashed, and everywhere private enterprise was failing. Broad speculation, and leverage, led to unprecedented financial destruction. Over night, millions of Americans lost their jobs and their fortunes. Everywhere was a growing sense of entitlement. Indeed, the disease was reaching epedemic proportions in Russia at exactly the same time, where the last few remaining capitalists
were being stamped out by a new man of the people, Stalin. A growing contingent of Americans were looking at the Russian example, and wondering how the model could be applied in the United States. Tough times made for tough political decisions, and the House of Representatives found it increasingly difficult to reach consensus. It was in this very moment that America began to fail, because it was here that we began to lose representative democracy. The framers of the Constitution had intended for the ratio of citizens to elective representatives to remain small, at approximately 1 representative per 30,000 citizens. James Madison wrote, “Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption." But in 1929, the House of Representatives voted to fix the number of members at 435, and since then we have grown from 1 representative per 30,000, to one representative per 700,000. (In fact, the prescedent for fixing the number of
representatives went back at least 10 years more, but it took a crisis to erode the Constitution).
The government sought to resolve the financial crisis through a policy of broad intervention, buying
up private enterprises, and acting as a buyer of last resort for bad debts. Up until this time,
the US dollar had been the gold standard of the global economy, but foreign investors were getting
nervous, and redeptions of US dollars were leaving the treasury bereft of gold. It was then
that Roosevelt dealt the death blow with the implementation of the New Deal. In 1933, in tandem
with the New Deal legislation, Roosevelt made it illegal for any American citizen to own more
than $100 worth of gold. Real wealth was replaced with paper money, and the Treasury began
aggressively printing its way out of trouble through the newly created FDIC and SIPC. With the
government firmly in control of the money supply, it could simply inflate its way out of debt over
time, without any of the nasty consequences caused by increasing taxes.

But the consequences of a controlled money supply, of deficit spending, and of implementing
progressive social programs would be felt for many years to come. Today we are crippled by
Social Security, thanks to progressive "borrowing" from the program over the years to cover
deficit spending. The American Dream is nearly dead, smothered under the entitlement of the
masses, waiting for the inevitable deathblow to be dealt by the administrators of the current
crisis. As Michelle Obama is fond of saying, "the truth is", that it does not matter who you
vote for, because your electorate betrayed you 80 years ago. The "truth is", that it does not
matter whether you vote for Senator Obama or Senator McCain, because they are two sides of the
same coin, the same corrupt political institution that brought you the Iraq war, the Patriot
Act, Guantanamo Bay, and water boarding. I submit to you that a vote for President is a vote for
failure, and that the rate of the failure is the only issue up for vote. You can vote for
"accelerated socialism", and elect Barack Obama and his comrade, or vote John McCain and the
other so-called maverick for "protracted failure and crisis". I suppose that I will choose the
latter, not that my vote counts anyway, thanks to the electoral college. I choose the latter
because it offers me more time, more time to make a change, more chances to change the minds of
my fellow Americans. It offers the chance for real Change and Hope, the kind created by human
productivity, not by entitlement and envy.