Boiling Point
Rather than put this in the comments section of my “Hot Water” post, I will address the feedback I’ve received here.
The Massachusetts election, if it has proven anything, has shown that rumors of the death of the Republican party have been highly exaggerated. Glenn Beck is even nowtrumpeting a “civil war in the Democratic party” to match the rhetoric that the Left has been issuing for over a year about the Republican party’s own discord. While this may or may not turn out to be an accurate observation, it should be clear by now that the Tea Party machine, the birther bullshit, and all the rest has all added up to an important win for Team Asshole. In other words, if you thought there was no method to their madness, you were wrong.
One could rightly point out that the Massachusetts election did not hinge on the tinfoil hats of the Beck conspiracy, that Martha Coakley ran a poor campaign, that Massachusetts actually has near universal health care coverage for its citizens, etc. All true. The fact is, all the political theater of the past year has not been expressly for the purpose of putting little Becks in power, but to till the soil for a conservative renaissance at the polls, if not in their politics.
I count myself among those average Joes who missed the forest for the trees. My own assumption was that the more the Republicans embraced the Bachmann/Wilson fringe, the worse it would go for them in November, since the Republicans would have to embrace screeching, bizarro candidates that were the GOP equivalents of the 9/11 truthers. When conservatives chose third party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava in the race for New York’s 23rd congressional district late last year, throwing the race to the Democrat, I felt this opinion was vindicated.
Instead, a far more important race was won by the Republican for the exact same reason. Not because Scott Brown was the more moonbat of the the two choices (a third candidate, oddly enough a conservative named Kennedy, did not place), but because a year’s worth of conservative eccentricity had peeled off a precious 4% of Massachusetts voters, and a single senator is now the torpedo that stands to sink the entire health care reform agenda.
Please note my use of language: health care reform agenda, not movement. And therein lies the Democrats downfall.
The difference between the Tea Party movement and the much larger anti-war movement of the Bush years lies in the fact that the Republicans are not afraid to be on the ground with the proles, fists in the air selling Obitler T-shirts, while the Democrats could scarely be troubled to be seen shaking hands with the anti-war Left in those days. The Democratic party is ultimately as timid as a tit mouse amongst dinosaurs, only coming out in the daylight when it is finally ready to exploit an opening niche, such as a Republican catastrophe so tremendous that if you couldn’t win then you might as well dissolve the party.
Where was the liberal answer to the Tea Party town hall campaign? My own Congressman, Louise Slaughter, wouldn’t even appear at her townhall meeting, except by phone. After nearly a century of debate over public healthcare, and with the majority finally in place to bring it about, why is it that the Democrats only sent the team mascot and the drum majors onto the field against the linebackers? Is John Stewart supposed to carry the ball forever? How many maladjusted meatheads did he fill the town halls with?
So let’s not get too bitter about the Republican “villains” without examining the Democrats’ own failed fundamentals. The last of that old 60’s liberalism died with Ted Kennedy, and the movement finally burned itself out (albeit in a blaze of glory) with the election of a black president. What remains is a bloodless, establishment political dinosaur that gives publicly funded bonuses to Wall Street, lets the health insurance industry into the White House to author reforms, and in every other way seems to be willing to help the Republicans back into the driver’s seat where they will, of course, do the exact same things. In the words of Mister Miyagi: “Stand in middle of road, squish like bug.”
this
Ironically, this recent spate of Tea Parties weren’t originally the domain of assholes like Glenn Beck. They had their roots with Ron Paul (http://www.teaparty07.com) You remember him, the anti-war, anti-tax and anti-Federal Reserve representative from Texas? The guy who speaks out against BOTH halves (Rep. and Dem.) of DC swine club? They were intended in the spirit of opposing the rapidly increasing tax and borrowing burden levied by the rulers in Washingtonland.
The original rallies were run by independent supporters of Paul’s grassroots campaign during 2007/2008 and were roundly ignored by the media, except in a “News of the Weird” sort of way, in spite of raising over $30 million (and $6 million in one day) for his GOP POTUS Primary run (side-note: Paul was the only anti-war GOP candidate and one of the only three in either of the “major” parties, Kucinich and Gravel being the others – so fuck you, HillBamaCain. He also was on friendly terms with Nader in ’08, even holding a joint press conference).
NOW they’ve been co-opted by the likes of Palin the Bimbo, Beck the Opportunist and Malkin the Reprehensible.
Anybody out there who believe that the Refuglicans and Demasshats aren’t working toward the EXACT SAME goals (centralizing their power in DC through control of energy via wars in Asia(R) and “Carbon” regulations(D), increasing the average person’s dependence on the state through “homeland security” fear-mongering(R) and universal “health-scare” programs(D), and having a body of indebted servants through easy credit schemes(R) and oppressive taxation(D) ) really doesn’t have any grasp on the situation.
The fact is that any assumption that the Republicans were ever down was flat-out wrong. My expectations remain as they did in’08 – McCain never had a chance, and the organizers in the Republican Party put him there because of it. McCain, compared to most of the more famous Republicans out there (and certainly compared to the outgoing Bush/Cheney team) is actually fairly liberal in his views–he (like Ted Kennedy) comes from the era before Republican instantly meant conservative and Democrat instantly meant liberal. There are issues that Obama is more conservative on than McCain was. When they picked McCain as their candidate, they were throwing the ’08 election, but they were starting to lay the groundwork for ’12.
See, we’ve already been through this once, and they’re running the exact same playback that worked out so well the first time. Nixon/Bush fucked up and “destroyed the Republicans forever”; Ford/McCain, despite being incredibly intelligent, and being the best choice for the job, lost the election (because of Nixon/Bush’s shadow) to the new anti-Republican ultra-hopeful dreamer Carter/Obama. Carter/Obama can’t possibly live up to the hope placed in him, not out of any personal weakness, but because the expectation was that he would magically fix everything the day after he took office, and that’s not possible. He was elected out of an idiotic and thoughtless reaction against the outgoing party, and so his entire brand of hope and social-interest will be rejected just as idiotically thoughtlessly as that election when people don’t start farting sunshine instantly. In 2012, I have no doubt that we’ll see a Ronald Reagan figure go up on the Republican bill–an instantly-recognizable uber-conservative with a gung-ho American Monomyth (Google it, I’m not going to waste your time explaining it here) cowboy kick-ass-and-take-names-but-don’t-bother-thinking image. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it were Sarah Palin. Hardcore Republicans will never have left the party, those that jumped ship because of Nixon/Bush will be back with a vengeance, and a good number of Democrats, disillusioned by the ‘failure’ of their great saviour to deliver them as they always assumed he would, will likewise turn to the other side.
Unless Obama manages to overcome his assigned role as Neo-Carter, the Republicans will take the next election in a landslide.
Just keep in mind these two things and what has happened makes all the sense in the world. One: The basics of ‘Bread and Circuses’ has been mastered by the conservatives. Two: With a few exceptions which are for show, the Democratic Party is primarily ‘Republican Lite’. Think carefully on that, and the corollaries. (do not equate Conservative with Republican, one is a subset of the other, but does not totally overlap) And be ready to be very depressed.
@Mikey- Nice post.
Concerning the main post, I am not sure why anyone that asks questions about 911 is demonized. Considering the fallout after 911 – undeclared wars and the destruction of the US constitution, why is it so crazy to want to know what really happened? Supposedly the terrorists hate our freedoms and are hell bent on ending them. We are more likely to die from slipping in the tub and drowning than from a terrorist attack. The only entity that I see stripping my freedoms away is the US government. So, who are the terrorists, even by the government’s own description?
The left-right paradigm is crumbling, the federal government is illegitimate, and people are starting to see through the rhetoric that anyone that asks non-PC questions is a supposed nut job or some version of an —-er – birther, truther, denier, etc.
There was never an independent investigation into 911, which was the catalyst for selling the American sheeple on the police state. Even the horse and pony show 911 commission had a majority of its members state that the government agreed to lie. The only claim I hold onto concerning 911 is that the American people have not been told the truth. And I am insulted when room temperature IQ pundits like Sean Vanity use canned responses like \go to ground zero and blah blah blah\ when anyone asks a valid question. Or, when Glenn Beck screamed on his radio that he hates 911 victims’ family members that continue to ask questions. Just name one way that the American people have benefited by the government’s response to 911; the power and control seized by government is quite obvious. For me, when blogs like this take jabs at \truthers\ without elaborating, it raises a red flag. But hey, maybe I’m weird because i don’t want my nads scanned at the airport like they are produce going through the supermarket checkout. Freedom has risks. It amazes me what total pussies \bad ass conservatives\ are when it comes to living life with a little freedom. It doesn’t take much courage to hide behind a badge and a gun and strip search old ladies in wheelchairs, or sit in a booth and missile strike villages with aerial drones. Pathetically, the real bad asses in America now are those that dare to take their lives in their hands by boarding a plane or metro without first allowing themselves to be violated by the newest TSA recruit out of the local GED program.
Giving up liberties for a false sense of security is ridiculous. Government will not eagerly return rights and liberties we forfeit willingly or silently. To say it is alright for government to encroach on some liberties is like saying it is alright for a pedophile to to abuse your little sister just a little bit. Once societies capitulate to a corrupt government, the citizens are going to get raped.
Universal Health Care is just awesome. I really hope you guys get to experience it.
I agree with a lot of what’s said here. I was sort of hoping that people would finally wise up and realize what a bad idea hardlining on either side of the political spectrum would be, unfortunately it just seems it gets worse. Every day the American public is assailed with “facts” and “figures” that are trumped up at best and outright lies at worse. And because people don’t bother to check these things, they would rather believe it. If nothing else I’m at least glad the 9/11 commission said that there was a failure to act on intelligence. Course I would’ve taken it a step further and moved for Bush to be impeached but lets be honest, the man and his administration war profiteered, falsified information, made up intelligence, blew covert agents’ cover, and many other reprehensible and unconstitutional acts, and got away with it. This is why I’d rather identify as a Democrat more than anything else even if I feel centrist at best. Because I no longer trust the Republican party at large to have any sort of interest in mind in what’s best for the country as a whole. I’m not naive enough to think that the Democrats are much better but since they’ve actually listened to me the few times I’ve stood up for what I’ve believed in (namely concerning ridiculous censorship of media), I tend to at least be willing to hear them out. Then again the fact they wouldn’t bring the hammer down on corporations and banks handing out bonuses for fucking up our economy was a real reality check. Ultimately the two-party system is and will always be irreparably flawed, and all the third parties are too crazy or too out there politically to consider as a solution. And don’t get me started on the Tea Party. The 2009 incarnation at least was founded on a series of idiotic lies and misrepresentations of the Founding Fathers, which to me feels more Unamaerican than anything I would be accused of by airheaded jackasses like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck just because I didn’t believe in America Uber Alles like they did. They just wanted to blame someone else for the fuckup that was Bush’s 8 years of fear and smear.
Another problem is we’re looking for instant solutions, as if we can suddenly just solve everything with a Google search. We can’t, and we never will. People got way too impatient after Obama was elected and rather than blame themselves for that they figured he wasn’t working fast enough. Well maybe if a certain other president hadn’t left the new one holding the bag and dealing with a fiscal crisis we might have gotten some shit accomplished. Or maybe not. Politics is slow to the point of being stationary at times after all. Ultimately we cannot judge on a projection. Things change. We entered the 21st century with a budget surplus, now we have a massive deficit. Things. Change. But the people who would rather feel safe instead of free, the people who believe they’ll be given tax breaks at a time when every state is broke, they believe changes will happen automatically and instantly the moment their chosen savior steps into office. And I use that in a literal sense given how much the Religious Right loved to play up Bush being born-again and pretend that he owed them something for getting him into office.
Perhaps 2012 will be the end of all things, though not in the sense that the Mayans saw it.
9/11: result of over a century of imperialism coming back to bite the US or conspiracy?
The Attacks should have been a wake-up call telling the people that the goverment cannot be allowed to interfere and destabilize other sovereign nations, causing misery amongs countless induviduals that they have no liability to take care of.
Instead people cling to the us or them mentality and break it down into a two party system of Never Forget versus The Truthers and ignore the historical development that led to the 9/11 attacks.
The US freely supported organizations as Al-Quaeda mostly for the sake of the petty squabbles between them and the Soviet Union, when the biggest threat dissapeared, the US became the number one targer for any kind of extremist that once was supplied by them.
The FBI, CIA and et cetera should have predicted a terrorist attack and probably did, yet it was all lost in incompetence, buerocracy and a lack of oversight.
What annoys me is that Conspiracy Theorists fail to see the whole picture of how their ideas overshadow conspiracies that actually took place, I’ve yet to see a Truther mention the goverments involvement with United Fruit, the overthrowing of the democratically elected goverment of Iran or even what happened in Florida in 2000.
For all we know, the Conspiracy Theories about 9/11 might as well have been spread by the Goverment to distract the left. It’s about as plausible as at least half the stuff I’ve heard.
One more thing…
There isn’t a “left” or “right,” really. There are 2 scales that need to be judged, the “mobility” scale on the Y-axis and the “action” scale on the X-axis:
On the “action” scale, the left half is about “social” actions like sexual matters, drug use, literature, etc. On the right are “economic” actions like keeping what you make, hiring whomever you like and earning, saving or spending as you please.
The “mobility” scale is on the Y-axis with “freedom” at one end and “security” at the other. The more “freedom” you have, the less “security” and vice versa.
So if you believe that there should be more government guaranteed security in economic matters but more freedom in social matters you would would probably be about even between freedom and security while bending more to the “left” of the X-axis.
Meanwhile if you believe that the government should protect the “sanctity” of just about anything for the sake of morality, but should be prevented from controlling matters of business, you would be on about the same vertical plane as the previous person, but on the “right” side of the X-axis.
I, of course believe governments have no business in telling me what to do with myself, that I have a right to what I’ve earned and nobody can take it away from me, and that my life is mine to keep or lose. Therefore, I sit evenly between the “left” and “right” ends of the X-axis, but am completely at the opposite end from “security.”
Stalin sits squarely just left of the center, but firmly entrenched at the farthest point of “security” away from me at “freedom.” Hitler sits just right of center, but just as far away from me.
It can be demonstrated here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php
See where you line up.
@Mikey
I don’t believe “left” or “right” of center really has any sensible meaning in relation to totalists of any stripe. While Hitler’s notion of German nationalism may have had some actual roots in a belief that Germany was a nation of providence, the “volk” were really a means to his own ends, and were actually detachable from the premise of a greater Germany. And did Stalin really believe in the rights of the workers? was this his genuine impetus for expanding international communism (later reduced to “socialism in one state” when he was forced to curb his post WWII ambitions)? Both men were egomaniacs and their policies supported those ends.
I’d take exception, also, to the way you define your two axes. Your X axis does not really contrast like and like. Why should private liberties ever be at odds with keeping what you make and spending how you please?
As for the Y-axis, “freedom” is not “security’s” natural antonym either. A free exchange of ideas can allow the public to dispense with bad policy, leading to greater security, while Hitler’s “security” ultimately led to Germany’s destruction.
Martha Coakley lost because she is made almost entirely of Fail & AIDS, not because of political party affilliation.