Squandered
Jeff Alworth
We're really at the dregs here. No one can know what will happen on election day (though signs are hopeful), but we can say that the McCain/Palin ticket has driven itself into the ditch. Yesterday, as Palin launched smears at Obama, a member of the crowd screamed "sit down boy!" at a black cameraman and "kill him!" about Obama. This is the erstwhile ruling party of the country, relegated to putting cheap racism into the mouth of an ingenue so green and from such a remote corner of the country that they hoped she'd escaped their taint. It represents one of the most remarkable collapses in American political history--1860 and 1932 perhaps the only other instances.
Let us rewind the tape eight years and pose this question: if the GOP had it to do all over again, what would they change? To add a little context, keep in mind that the party was in absolute dominance: holding in addition to the White house an 8-vote majority in the Senate (54-46) and a 9-vote majority in the House (222-213). Thereafter, the GOP put in place a systematic plan to rule Washington without interference from Democrats. They harnessed the campaign-funding and bill-writing power of K Street, created new rules that sidelined Democrats from participation in lawmaking, and were led by a secretive and autocratic executive branch that, thanks to 9/11, didn't have to veto a bill until 2006. Everything they did, electively and legislatively, the Republicans did with carte blanche.
The legislative failures are ironically the final "successes" of an ideology that has gotten further and further removed from reality. Thanks to Republican mismanagement over the past eight years, the central tenets of Reagan conservatism will stand as examples of how not to govern:
- Neocon fantasies. The "Bush Doctrine" of
pre-emption, outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy, was just one element of the sadly misguided foreign policy of intervention and American exceptionalism. Neocon arrogance led directly to torture, secret renditions, illegal
imprisonment, and a costly and pointless war. Instead of redefining the
rules about foreign engagement, Republicans will be running from these
mistakes as long as Democrats ran from Vietnam.
- Free-market nonsense. For Republicans, markets were
all-wise. They could solve all problems--not just financial problems,
but those in health care, the media, Social Security, energy, the
environment, you name it. Eight years later, after energy
deregulation, media consolidation, the mortgage crisis and resultant
credit crisis, markets don't look so wise. For 28 years, the words
"privatization" and "deregulation" were credible policy positions. Now they're punchlines.
- Small government. It has long been a tenet of
Republicanism that the government is incompetent and dangerous, and
thanks to Bush, they proved it. Katrina will always stand as the lesson
about why we need competent government. Republicans have spent 30
years denigrating government's role, and it will take decades for
voters to trust that they are competent stewards of critical agencies.
Incompetence kills.
The second astonishing failure of the modern GOP involves the politics of Rove. For a generation, Republicans maintained the mantle of morality. This was partly a result of the Christian right's inclusion in the GOP coalition, but also a result of a Democratic Party that had grown complacent and arrogant. It allowed them to launch repulsive attacks at Democrats--in the interest of "protecting" Americans--without staining their reputation among independent voters. All that has changed. Now these attacks from McCain--and Gordon Smith--aren't sticking. They're staining the GOP, and it will be a long time before anyone considers this crowd moral again.
Eight years ago, the Republicans had an amazing opportunity to get through the bills they wanted and burnish their standing. Instead, they are now running from their own policies as fast as they run from the label "Republican." Once they had all the power, but they have squandered it spectacularly--and for what benefit?
It is worth at least nodding to this recent
history as a cautionary tale as we look forward. In all likelihood, the Democratic Party will hold the White House, House, and Senate in three months. Their situation will be radically
different from the 2000 Republicans, though--instead of a huge budget surplus and peace, they
inherit a massive deficit, two wars, and a severe recession. But they
will nevertheless be held responsible for the steps they take.
American voters are grounding the adolescents and giving the keys of
government to the adults. Democrats would be wise not to make the
mistakes Republicans did and squander the voters' trust. As we've seen, things can change quickly.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 7, '08
Just as once the Whigs passed from power, and in part came back as a point of view within the Republican Party, I wonder now if the Republican Party will pass away? Will there now be a new political party, a "conservative" party to take the place of this discredited brand?
There used to be a group called the John Birch Society, that was laughed at they were so radical/right. Yet, todays neocon version of the Republican Party is more right-wing that the JB group. Oregon is witness to the bind of the Republican brand now. To win your party's primary, you have to be so far to the right you can't win the general election. Either than, or like Smith, you periodically change your strips and become something you aren't.
It's time for the Republicant (can't get anything right) party to go away, but what will they come back as?
Oct 7, '08
Some thoughtful commentary. The heavy lifting begins after the election. The up-side; we will all be working the oars with an inclusive Administration at the helm for a change. Bon voyage.
Oct 7, '08
Let us rewind the tape eight years and pose this question: if the GOP had it to do all over again, what would they change? To add a little context, keep in mind that the party was in absolute dominance: holding in addition to the White house an 8-vote majority in the Senate (54-46) and a 9-vote majority in the House (222-213).
Not only did the GOP have a sizable majority they also had a spineless, play-it-safe Democratic party going along with all their abuses. If the Democrats had stood up to the Republicans they would have taken some heat at that time, but today they could have been saying, "We told you so." Instead, the people are saying the Democrats are just as much to blame as the Republicans.
Oct 7, '08
An excellent analysis from Jeff Alworth.
I can think of one BIG mistake the Democrats would make, a mistake that would drive our economy further into a ditch.
That mistake would be to listen to people like Arthur Stamoulis, would provided a protectionist guest opinion piece in today's Oregonian, filled with misleading statistics about the harm of free trade policies.
The parallel? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which erected trade protectionist walls that cemented into place the Great Depression worldwide.
I fear there are those in the Democratic party, led by Oregon's own Peter DeFazio, would want to make the same mistake all over again.
4:39 p.m.
Oct 7, '08
Unfortunately our presidential candidate is committed to embracing the two wars he will inherit if he wins, dragging out the occupation of Iraq and expanding that in Afghanistan, and to expanding an already unsustainable overall military budget. That disastrous plan of action will exacerbate both the deficit and the recession.
To say that Bush inherited "peace" is overly generous to the Clinton administration, and the continuities with Clinton's securocrat advisement in a prospective Obama administration is part of the reason its prospects are grimmer than they need be.
Oct 7, '08
Jeff,
Though I have heard it expressed as you have above quite often of late, I believe it is more accurate to describe the Bush Doctrine as claim to a right to wage preventive war, which is a much more aggressive stance than claiming the right to wage preemptive war. the difference in words is just a few letters. The difference in policy is grave.
Oct 7, '08
That mistake would be to listen to people like Arthur Stamoulis, would (sic) provided a protectionist guest opinion piece in today's Oregonian, filled with misleading statistics about the harm of free trade policies.
Most people would probably agree that a return to Smoot-Hawley-type protectionism is not in the cards, but around the time of NAFTA an Anglo-French wheeler-dealer, Sir James Goldsmith, proposed dividing the world into a number of economic zones based on economic status. If I recall correctly, North America, Western Europe and Japan would have been one zone. Trade would continue within each zone but would have been limited between zones. One consequence would have been the probable elimination of shipping good wage jobs to the likes of India. I'm not an economist but found his concept interesting. Perhaps, there is some viable form where some trade could be restricted while other forms would be encouraged.
Unfortunately our presidential candidate is committed to embracing the two wars he will inherit if he wins, dragging out the occupation of Iraq and expanding that in Afghanistan, and to expanding an already unsustainable overall military budget.
Apparently, Afghan and Saudi leaders have been having discussions with the Taliban about a diplomatic solution and Obama might be able to lead the United States to its senses and join in this debate. He might get some flack from his sponsors in the war armaments trade who could see themselves losing business, but there is a solution there. Instead of having these morally bankruupt corporations building warships and bombers they could build hospital ships and flying MASH units to do good for others instead of well for themselves. I was indirectly involved with a US Navy hospital ship in the l980s that toured the Philippines providing free medical and dental care around the islands. You can bet those Filipinos had the opposite opinion of the United States that the Iraqis and Afghanis have.
Oct 7, '08
After Bush took office, the Senate was at 50-50 (Cheney as the tiebreak) until Jeffords went Independent and swung the leadership back to the Democrats. If memory serves, leadership swung Bush's way by one vote after the 2002 election, and they increased their lead as a result of the 2004 election.
Your points about Republican dominance and Democratic weakness are valid, but their dominance in the Senate didn't come until 2005
2:36 a.m.
Oct 8, '08
Tom Civiletti is exactly right about the distinction between preventive and pre-emptive war, although the Bushites like to obfuscate the difference and most of the media including critical bloggers follow suit.
Pre-emptive war is actually recognized as legitimate under the U.N. Charter and related law of war as not being a form of aggression. Basically it says a country is allowed to attack first if another country is making clear war preparations or mobilizations to the point that an attack is imminent. The immediacy of the threat is the key element of a pre-emptive war legal under international law.
I don't think preventive war has any formal meaning in international law, and I am not quite sure if it was originally used by the Bushites in some of their justifications, or if it is description formulated by critics to characterize the Bush doctrine that aggression can be justified by the possibility that a country may become a threat at some future time. But whether the term was first applied to that doctrine by the admin itself or their critics, the substance of the doctrine is what it means, which is not at all synonymous with pre-emptive war in the legal sense.
Given the U.S. track record on attacking and invading other countries, the Bush doctrine of preventive war if accepted would justify virtually any country in the world attacking the U.S., because of the likelihood that the U.S. may be a threat to them at some point in the future.
Perhaps of more immediate relevance, it also could be used o justify wars of aggression by other countries on one another. If allowed to stand it represents the death of the idea of collective security on which the U.N. was founded. However imperfectly that international order has operated, we will do better to improve it than to destroy it.
8:02 a.m.
Oct 8, '08
Tom and Chris, no dispute at all. It's why I linked to the actual language. Whenever you write a post like this, you could get into language that would double or quadruple the length. It was actually language Bush retrofitted to excuse the invasion of Iraq. When I was first blogging in early 2003, I had a long series on this theory of war. It reconciles with no standard and actually represents a radical departure from standard just war theory.
Pre-emptive war is regarded as legal only in the case of "imminent" threats. Even Bush couldn't make the argument that Iraq posed an imminent threat.
I don't think we have arrived at a good shorthand for what to call this, though. I guess preventative war might be slightly better, though.
11:44 a.m.
Oct 8, '08
Jeff, there's a fine shorthand: illegal aggression.
The real linguistic problem is what to do about U.S. political discourse and institutions that won't recognize it for what it is.
Oct 8, '08
Here's a 2002 piece by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on what would become known as the Bush Doctrine: The Immorality of Preventive War
Oct 8, '08
Bush's war crimes, as Nader has noted, will pass on to the next president unless he removes all personnel from the area, therebye ending the train of criminality.
Obama will not pursue Bush or Cheney for their crimes, as Cass Sunstein makes plain, because their crimes will be his own crimes unless he changes his plans.
Of course, the increases in military spending favored by Obama will eventually bankrupt us even if the continuing bailouts that he favors will not, and the aftermath may well be international war crimes tribunals that try a by-then de-fanged U.S. and its immoral chief executives.
Oct 8, '08
Instead, they are now running from their own policies as fast as they run from the label "Republican."
The whole country appears to be running from the Republican brand. This is a great opportunity for Democrats, but we aren't making big gains due to our own success, but instead due to Republican failure. It is essential that we remember this because starting in November our national leaders will be patting themselves on the back and planning the next "liberal consensus." But if you believe as I do that this victory is not of our own making, then you also know that we're 2-4 years away from a complete reversal if we don't spend our time developing a coherent liberal ideology.
Examples:
Foreign policy. Our foreign policy consists mainly of reigning in the excesses of the neo-cons. Besides cleaning up after Bush, what will an Obama foreign policy look like?
Taxes. Democrats have adopted the Republican mantra of tax cuts, with the exception of the super-wealthy. This is of course a wildly popular position, but no one is making the Steve Novick argument that society benefits from strong public services. Obama expects those in the top 2% to pay more, but has he ever explained why those in the top 10% - 2% of income (roughly $108,000 - $250,000) need to pay less?
Education. The left has no comprehensive national education platform. Our policy positions mainly consist of rejecting vouchers, rejecting merit pay for teachers, and pushing back on NCLB. What is the Democratic strategy for revitalizing and modernizing our public schools?
Public Safety. What is our answer to the tough-on-crime position of the GOP? Here is Oregon, in response to an absurd crime measure, the Dems put out a just slightly less absurd alternative.
On the environment and health care, I think we have real substance that differentiates us from the GOP, and that may be contributing to our strength. But mostly we are winning because the GOP fumbles every possession. We have a long way to go before we're winning on the strength of our ideas.