rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 291,433
- 188,564
- 2,615
The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons
Does the "Party of No" have any plan for our future?
Does the "Party of No" have any plan for our future?
The GOP is still shell-shocked. After the collapse of the Bush presidency and the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008especially the improbable, to their minds likely inconceivable, ascendancy of Barack Obamathe Republicans have dug themselves in behind the barricades of a nihilistic right-wing populism. They apparently think it's a position to fight back fromnot just in the rhetorically heated summer of 2009 but in the cooler Novembers of 2010 and 2012.
As events unfold, Republicans are likely to discover that they've dug themselves deeper into a hole, leaving them bereft of positive ideas to offer voters an alternative, appealing conservative vision of the future. Quick: Think of a big ideaany bold initiativethat the present GOP stands for. It is a party without a platform.
I guess you could dignify the coming GOP sleight-of-reality as a strategy; but their desperation is almost certain to be confounded by economic recovery. The revival of growth and jobs will reinforce the president's authority while draining the GOP's. What will Americans believe: the truth in their own lives or the discredited distortions of the stimulus-denying, do-nothing Republicans? I can hear the Democratic message now: The party of "no" was wrong on the economy and they're wrong on health care.
Across the board, the default to negativism now seems embedded in Republican DNA. This week, on the basis of new national intelligence estimates, President Obama modified the Bush plan for missile defense in Europe to make it more effective against short- and medium-range missiles fired from Iran. Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham slammed the decision as "a capitulation to the Russians." Unfortunately for him, the recommendation came from Obama'sand Bush'sDefense Secretary, Robert Gates, himself a former director of the CIA. The decision was backed up, he added, by "the advice of [the] national security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leaders."
None of this mattered to Republicans; they couldn't help themselves. Their knee-jerk reaction was to rush out a latter-day variant of the old charge that Democrats are soft on Communism. (Never mind that nothing could have been more soft-headed than George W. Bush's conclusion that Vladimir Putin was "trustworthy" after the president "was able to get a sense of his soul" by looking Putin in the eye.) The attack on Obama's decision stirred the adolescent wonder of the GOP's Star Warsloving base; but it's unlikely to carry much credibility with mainstream America in a world in which Soviet Communism is defunct.
At home, where the threat of under-regulated financial markets is still very real, Republican negativism echoes the populist cry against bailouts while scorning the financial reforms the president has proposed to prevent another crisis. In harmony with the tune of vested interests, GOP legislators disdain the Obama call for a consumer financial protection agency to oversee credit cards and mortgages. Inaction is their only remedy for the mortgage malpractice that fueled the housing bust and took the rest of the economy with it.
The Republicans are against, against, against; against legislation to combat climate change, against hate-crimes legislation, against equal rights for gays, against a woman's right to choose, against immigration reform, against reforming college loans to benefit students, not banks. What in the world are they for except Star Wars, torture, and tax cuts for the wealthy?