WhatFinger


The Republican Party Establishment has looked its gift-horse in the mouth. Either they will win, and America will lose, or the gift-horse will swallow the RPE whole

Republicans Look Into the Mouth of the Gift Horse



In November of 2010, the depth and breadth of the Tea Party's seriousness and power of influence was fully understood by the Republican Party Establishment (RPE) for the first time. The Democrats' attempts to dismiss and belittle this grassroots movement could easily be taken as evidence of their fear of a middle-American backlash against Obama's neo-socialism, and would account for their desire to nip the new threat in the bud with ridicule. The RPE, however, which, if victory were the name of the game, ought to have embraced the Tea Party as their unforeseen salvation, was uncomfortable with it from the get-go.
They complained about the Tea Party's unrestrained naïveté supplanting 'proven' candidates in favor of Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, and so on, as though the Republican victory in the midterms would have been remotely close to the shellacking it was, had the Tea Party played the safety-first game the RPE invariably recommends. They also encouraged cooler (more moderate) heads in the formation of a party hierarchy in the newly-won congress, practically hiding their faces in shame at the shrill voices of the rookies, and leaving the Tea Party, which footed the bill for this massive majority, with an equally massive case of buyer's remorse. Throughout the debt ceiling fight, for example, the House leadership peppered their rhetoric with Tea Party-flattering remarks, only to settle in the end for a deal that was not so much a compromise in the realpolitik sense as a compromise of basic principles, particularly with regard to the much-ballyhooed spending cuts. As Mark Steyn pointed out at the time:
"'Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years' is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over 10 years. And, as they'd originally planned to increase it by $8 trillion, that counts as a cut." (ocregister.com, Aug. 5, 2011)

Support Canada Free Press


The net return for all this post-election 'reserve' shown by the Republican congress is plainly symbolized in the RPE's chosen presidential candidate's blithe critique of Michele Bachmann's record during a recent debate. In particular, Governor Romney distinguished himself from the congresswoman on the grounds that he has a record of getting things done, whereas, for all her sound rhetoric, Bachmann rarely accomplishes her legislative objectives. Aside from the obvious fact that their respective jobs--chief executive of a state vs. single member of a 435-seat legislative body (and one in which Bachmann has, for most of her tenure, been in the minority party)--make the comparison unfair, we must also recall that a "record of results" can often be the calling card of a professional compromiser, a person always prepared to do something far from ideal merely in order to have 'done something.'

How dare Romney accuse Bachmann of failing to get things done, when he embodies the very spirit of the RPE that caused her, and others like her, to fail!

The formats of this year's debates, which have actively discouraged substantive argument between candidates, and have absolutely forbidden extended discussion of any topic, prevented Bachmann from offering the proper answer to Romney's charge. Allow me to offer it on the congresswoman's behalf:
How dare he accuse Bachmann of failing to get things done, when he embodies the very spirit of the RPE that caused her, and others like her, to fail! Some politicians fail to "get things done" because they do not intend to get things done. President Obama, the erstwhile Senator Present, 'failed' to get things done for this reason. Some politicians, on the other hand, fail to get things done because their best efforts and intentions are simply insufficient to overcome the refusal of others--particularly among their putative allies--to follow them in taking a difficult stand against the interests of short-term popularity (as the heel-draggers perceive it), and in favor of long-term necessities. Michele Bachmann falls into this latter category. Her popularity among Tea Partiers--similar to that of Senator DeMint--has always been rooted in the Tea Party's knowledge that she was trying to do what they believed had to be done, and to persuade others to join her. That the others didn't join her can no more be blamed on her ineffectiveness than can an avalanche be blamed on the rocks that didn't fall.
Throughout the summer and autumn, as polls have changed, and candidates have joined the race, dropped out, risen and then fallen in popularity, two things have been as constant and predictable as the sunrise: (1) Romney's poll numbers have remained under 30 percent among likely primary voters; and (2) mainstream RPE commentators have continually talked about him as the obvious frontrunner and inevitable Republican nominee. Regarding point (2), it must be said that, in the name of collegiality, the RPE pundits have occasionally allowed for the possibility that he might have a rival in the process. Early on, it was the specter of Palin, although they made it clear they would have preferred Daffy Duck. For a short time, it was Bachmann--although just long enough for George Will to tie a couple of insignificant gaffes around her neck as though they were an anchor, and then throw her overboard. Then, briefly, came Perry, the neo-conservatives' Bush redux moment. 'Poor debate performances' (euphemism) quickly dissolved his hopes. Then came Cain, whose staying power in the polls has been troublesome for the RPE crowd. Two days after Herman Cain surprised everyone by winning the Florida straw poll, Christiane Amanpour, Will, and the rest of the gang on This Week engaged in a roundtable discussion of the primary race which began and ended with the premise that the whole story was whether Perry's flagging campaign could do anything now to stall Romney's meteoric rise. Cain was never even mentioned. In other words, the commentators stuck to the script. To bookend this dismissal, on the November 13th edition of the same program, Will peremptorily tossed Cain out the window with the remark that "where there are four women, there may be twenty-four," followed by a backhand at Cain's conservative supporters. In a nutshell, he challenged them to put their money where their mouths are regarding character, and do to him what they would have wanted the Democrats to do to Clinton. This strikes me as the most cynical form of opportunism, on two fronts. First of all, "where there are four women" presumes there are four women. With one exception, the allegations against Cain seem frivolous in the mode of modern, post-feminist sensitivity politics: Cain said something that made someone "uncomfortable" in some ominous but unspecified manner. As for the one accuser who has something genuinely disturbing to report, her motives and credibility have been questioned, and not in tangential, character-assassination-style ways, but by way of legitimate doubts about the veracity of her claims. Will's condemnation should be conditional: If there are four, there may be twenty-four. No one could argue with that, and no one has argued against that. But first it must be established that there really are four, or even one. And this leads us to the second half of Will's latest remarks, the swipe at conservatives who continue to support Cain. In fact, all the conservative voices I have heard defending Cain have qualified their defence by saying that if he is lying, then he must be cast out. In other words, they have remained consistent on the question of character. They are merely demanding that we all (including the RPE opportunists) show enough character ourselves not to assume Cain is guilty simply because it would suit his opponents' purposes if he were. (The sober voice on this issue belongs to Thomas Sowell, in his November 10th article "The Real Scandal.") All in all, by offhandedly dismissing each of his opponents, the RPE commentators conveniently ignore the glaring evidence that the real story of the campaign, at least with regard to Romney, is the question of how, in spite of all his money, organization, and campaign experience, he has managed to gain so little momentum. Of course, the answer to this latter question is clear to anyone who understands the dynamic of this year's Republican primary process. RPE-types have tried to pin it on the old standbys, such as Romney's flip-flops on some issues, or to isolate just one issue, 'Romneycare,' when of course the real explanation is that the Tea Party has become the dominant voice in the process, and they do not regard Romney as a kindred spirit. This accounts for Romney's peculiar kind of stagnation in the polls; always prominent in the upper ranks, but never able to pull away from his nearest rivals, whoever they might be at any given moment. One might be tempted to see this last phrase, "whoever they might be," as evidence of his strength: new contenders keep getting sent in to challenge him, only to end up leaving on a stretcher. And this explanation might be reasonable if his problem were indeed some careless words, or a changed position. In truth, however, his problem is more deep-seated. When he speaks about the economy--which is clearly going to be the driving issue of the next presidential election--he speaks, to put it simply, 'like a Republican.' That is to say, he sounds reasonable, competent, and like a man who believes in free enterprise, broadly speaking. He wants 'to put more money in the hands of consumers'; he knows that 'jobs are created by the private sector'; he believes in 'American exceptionalism' and intends to maintain America's position as 'the world's leading economy.' The RPE, upon hearing Romney espouse these kinds of views, keeps figuratively turning to the Tea Party in exasperation, as if to say, "Now do you believe in him?" Or, "What more does he have to do to convince you?" But the truth is that, however much one may agree with what Romney is saying, he is not saying anything, in principle, that would not be said--or that has not actually been said--by any and every other candidate in this race. In other words, his positions, however eloquently he propounds them, are merely baseline Republican positions. And while, upon hearing him express these views, the RPE says, "There you go, he says the right things and he looks good saying them," the Tea Party voters are apparently thinking, "Well of course he believes that--he's a Republican. But what else does he have to offer?"

Romney: Handsome, clean-cut, well-spoken, and capable of speaking forcefully when called for, he seems like a satisfactory Republican candidate--for 1920

It's the "what else" part that has been so baffling to the RPE since the earliest days of the Tea Party, that stunned them during the midterm elections, and that is frustrating the hell out of them now. The moderators of each of the debates thus far have been straight-ahead liberals or Fox's "fairest and most balanced" crew, and have therefore been, to a man or woman, unqualified in the extreme to push the candidates on the real issues of concern to the Tea Party. As long as the debates circumscribe the arena of discussion within the safe, normal bounds of politics as usual, Romney comes across very well. Handsome, clean-cut, well-spoken, and capable of speaking forcefully when called for, he seems like a satisfactory Republican candidate--for 1920. What the RPE commentators, not to mention the debate moderators, fail to understand is that the most powerful force within the party today--more powerful than the Washington machine, more powerful than evangelicals per se, and more powerful than the foreign policy hawks--is a broad-based, loosely-affiliated network of middle class citizens who have lifted the veil of reality television, dispensed with the 'once-every-four-years' approach to political interest, and looked straight at the coldest reality of all: the imminent demise of their civilization, and indeed of modern civilization as such. The debate question they want asked is, "What is your fifty-year plan to bring this nation from the brink of authoritarian rule and total societal collapse back to the dream of a self-sustaining constitutional republic?" If their support of Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, or, yes, even Paul, seems like grasping at straws, at least those candidates can be said to have offered straws at which a desperate man might grasp. Completely rewriting the tax code, making massive cuts to major federal programs (perhaps even including defense), and eliminating major government departments are the kind of 'big ideas' that used to be considered the realm of fringe candidates. In the present climate, they give hope to the Tea Party. "At least," the Tea Partiers think, "he (or she) understands that we need a comprehensive change of direction." Romney's tough talk on China is a perfect example of how he, and his RPE supporters, are missing the boat. Tariffs against China? Trade war with China? China OWNS the United States, in the form of treasury securities. As many have noted, the United States debt, even leaving aside unfunded liabilities (which cannot in truth be left aside by anyone who is unwilling to end the liabilities outright by repealing the relevant laws and programs) is now at a level that is not merely "unsustainable," but perhaps simply unpayable. Ever. The hole may simply be too deep. The same may be said of the regulatory apparatus of the federal government. No mere president or congress can undo the massive supra-executive machinery and authority of the federal bureaucracy.

So the two related questions haunting America are: Can it ever be solvent again, and can it ever be free again?

So the two related questions haunting America are: Can it ever be solvent again, and can it ever be free again? The RPE, to say nothing of the Democrats and the population at large, have chosen to carry on with their heads ever-more solidly planted in the sand. Tea Partiers are the men and women who, in the face of these literal life-or-death concerns, have firmly decided to fight the fight, to "live free or die," if you will. That's why they cannot warm to Romney. They know that he simply doesn't understand what is at stake. They see him as a man who would "get things done," in the modern sense of doing what most Republican leaders of the past several decades have done, namely accepting policy compromises that, in their net effect, would keep the American ball rolling down the hill into the abyss, albeit at a slightly reduced speed compared to the Democratic approach. The Tea Party message is that this is the nation's last chance to overrun that ball, stop its fall, and slowly begin the process of rolling it back up the hill. That this might, in practice, be a Sisyphean task, is a risk they are willing to take. There is real nobility in seeking to do the necessary but seemingly impossible. It may, in truth, turn out to be tragic nobility. But even that would be a fate far better than knowing that one was playing political tiddlywinks while the republic burned. Is Romney more easily electable than all the other candidates? Perhaps. Should it matter? Not this time. America--and the rest of the world, for that matter--can't afford to think that way anymore. The Republican Party Establishment has looked its gift-horse in the mouth. Either they will win, and America will lose, or the gift-horse will swallow the RPE whole, and take a shot at saving the modern world. A lot of intelligent but compromised men may have to do some soul-searching over the next year. That story too has a chance to be tragic but noble. We'll see.


View Comments

Daren Jonescu -- Bio and Archives

Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea.


Sponsored