Saturday, January 4, 2014

What's Eating The Right Wing Now?

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dom: Aka Koch Bros.

Have you noticed how quiet the Tea Party has been lately?  Is it just that Mad Dog has not been paying attention or is it simply that Congress is not in session?

They are still out there, even when you don't see them. But you know they are there, like cockroaches, busy, unseen, ready to come out when they think the time is right.

President Obama has been taking punches on the roll out of Obamacare, but now, as more and more people have locked down policies, you are, at least if you listen to NPR, beginning to hear stories from more or less ecstatic people who have health insurance, who either never had it before or who had dreadfully inadequate policies.

If this keeps up, people might just get to like having health insurance; they may even get to depend on it like Medicare and Social Security, and if that happens, people may just begin to believe government is good for something.  And if the government is good for something, then what can those anarchists in the Tea Party sell?

Well, maybe  they can always try to kill Obamacare with a thousand cuts and bleed it anemic until people start to dislike it  because it cannot run up the mountain in its weakened state.

Presumably, Ted Cruz and Eric Cantor and the entire Congressional delegations from South Carolina and Texas and Arizona are huddling with the Koch brothers and Carl Rove and other luminaries of the Tea Party Thought Palace, rehearsing their songs.

Charles M. Blow, notes in today's NY Times that 43% of Republicans (Pew Research) are now "staunch conservatives" in terms of their ideas on the size and role of government, economic policy (trickle down good,  government rescues bad),social issues (gay marriage, bad, guns good, government restrictions bad) and moral concerns (Heaven only knows what constitutes moral concerns in Tea Party Republican eyes nowadays.) A majority of these "staunch" types watch Fox News regularly.

 Of white evangelical Protestants 73% disbelieve evolution. This is in contrast to all Republicans, of whom 54% believe in evolution.  This means 73% of evangelicals and 46% of all Republicans believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

Billy O'Reilly has been inveighing against the "War on Christmas," which he hears in the greeting "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas."  Newt Gingrich picked up the Christians-under-attack theme, "There's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern on the other side, and none of it gets covered by the news media." Apparently, Mr. Gingrich does not watch Fox News.

Tea Party Republicans, which is to say, Republicans, or at least 43% of Republicans, the staunch set,  depend on anger, resentment and a sense of having been wronged.  (Actually, Mad Dog would like to know who those other 57% of Republicans are who are, who are not staunch. And who represents them? John Boehner? Mitch McConnell? How are these guys different from staunch?) Republicans are the party of anger. 

This is not the first time the Republican party has been the party of grievance. Of course, there was the McCarthy era Republican party of Who-lost-China?  and deep paranoia. But, originally, when the Republican party emerged from the Whigs, and nominated Abraham Lincoln, a lot of them were abolitionists, and being angry about slavery, even today, more than 150 years later, that seems appropriate. But there is a world of difference between being angry about slavery and being angry about Obamacare.

During Mad Dog's youth, there was the war in Vietnam. America was killing peasants in their rice paddies, burning babies with Napalm, and sending off its sons from America to die for "honor" and glory and to "fight for freedom" and to "defend our country."  That was something to get mad about. Republicans weren't bothered by all that then. It was disaffected Democrats who roiled about Vietnam. It was Democrats who served notice on their own sitting President he would not be renominated and it was Democrats who rejected the candidate of smoke filled rooms, Hubert Humphrey, because he supported the war in Vietnam, and it was Democrats who self destructed and handed the election to Richard Nixon because Democrats were angry at their own for having blundered into Vietnam.

But what issue today rises to the level of evil reached by the institution of slavery or  war? The War on Christmas?  Gun control?  Teaching evolution in schools? 

Mad Dog must be missing something here. But what have the Republicans got to get America boiling mad about now?








8 comments:

  1. Why Mad Dog, I think you've gone to far this time. Likening the Koch boys, Rove and the gang to cockroaches is both rude and demeaning-to the cockroaches. You just know they're gathered, as we speak, in some clandestine hovel a plottin and a plannin--what can be their 2014 "Death Panel " equivalent and how many ways can they smear Hillary in 2016.....You will be supporting Hillary won't you-or will we be on opposing teams during the primary?
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maud,

    That depends on what the choices are.
    Hillary has never held much personal appeal for me--knew too many women like her going through school. (In fact, had I continued to date my high school heart throb--Wellsley Class of '69--I might have even know Hillary herownself.
    But Hillary has the right policies and values, so I'd be quite happy to see a President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
    On the other hand, I was happier to see President Barack Obama.
    Still am.

    Mad Dog

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mad Dog,
    Well for me, unless the additional choices are Jesus or Dylan, I'm fairly certain I'll be supporting Hillary. I can't think of anyone else currently roaming around the Democratic party who would be a better or stronger candidate than her. Well, provided no more skeletons fall out of her or Wild Bill's closet... I'm curious why she and women like her have "never held much personal appeal"-what don't you like about her?
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maud,

    Nothing substantial. She's humorless, grim, determined and not particularly engaging. All very subjective, I realize. Kennedy was not a great President, but at least he could surprise you with a zinger. Hillary never surprises you. She could be married to that Congressman on House of Cards. I'll vote for her. It's too much to ask a President to entertain you or delight you. Obama could be moving when he had the right circumstances going for him. Hillary has never moved me.

    Mad Dog

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well she moves us womenfolk....
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maud,

    Coming from you, it makes me think. I've never quite understood why a Black candidate should appeal to Blacks, merely for being Black, or a Jewish or a Catholic candidate should appeal to Jews or Catholics. I get the symbolism in a society which has told these groups, "No, you cannot lead or even be equal." But our society is not there any more for any of these groups. Thank Heaven. Now, the great statement is, we are sex blind, color blind, ethnic blind, blind to church. We judge you for who you are, not what we are. Perhaps you are seeing the world as it is and I am seeing it as it ought to be.

    Mad Dog

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mad Dog,
    Well I'm not advocating supporting a candidate based solely ,or primarily, on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. Sarah Palin was a fine example of that ridiculous line of thinking and thankfully that didn't work. Blacks didn't just support Obama because he was Black-as if he could just as easily have been Kanye West-they supported him because he was a superior candidate AND he was Black. Many women, myself included, would be delighted with Hillary as the nominee because we believe her to be the best candidate and the fact that she's a woman just makes it all the better. Why wouldn't we be happy-if she's elected it will have taken over 225 years to have a female President-but who's counting. For women our age, who grew up in a time where there were still such clear differences in female and male professions-women were secretaries, teachers, nurses, nuns-and men were, well, everything else-why wouldn't there be a sense of pride and validation if she were elected. With all due respect Mad Dog, as a white male you can imagine how it feels to be a member of a historically repressed group,and in your case I think you do, but you can't know how it feels. (stop rolling your eyes..) For example I still remember vividly where I was and how I felt-very moved-when Geraldine Ferraro was chosen as the VP candidate-can you?
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maud,
    I must have been blessed to have grown up in a place where women were not a suppressed class. In high school, I was beaten for student government president by a girl who directly addressed the problem of electing a girl to the post of president, which had never happened, in her speech. I remember sitting there on the stage thinking, "She's right. Why should a girl not be president?" Of course, I was hoping my fellow students would think, "FIne, just not this particular girl." She beat me. She was prom queen, captain of the cheerleaders (no girl jocks in those days) and she went off to Wellsley. She may have actually been in Hillary's class, if Hillary was class of '69.
    Unfortunately, the rest of her life was not as happy or successful. She is the ultimate in Maud's image of the prom queen is a snapshot of a person at a certain time in life.

    At my college, the girls were more highly selected than the boys. The joke was, "If you want to know where you are on the curve, count up all the Pembrokers (the women), add the number of Asians and that's where you start. They are all going to be higher than you on the curve." So, the idea of a woman out competing you or of a woman in charge seemed like something of a non issue. Apparently, I was living in a bubble.

    Mad Dog

    ReplyDelete