There was, in particular, one middle-aged lady among the teeming, aggressively benighted masses which thronged the National Mall on Saturday who was, in my opinion, trying just a trifle too hard at faking sincerity.
She's a schoolteacher, from Jacksonville, Fla., who told the NY Times that "It's more than Obama -- this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue." She went on to explain that she and many others in the crowd had been seething for years at the government's growth and its Constitutional abuses; they were purely philosophical citizens all, we were asked to believe, who only coincidentally had had enough following the installation of a black Democrat as president of the United States. Nothing partisan or personal, you understand.
I've mentioned this before so I apologize for the repetition, but its applicability seems to be timeless. A few years ago, while living in Missouri's ultraconservative 7th Congressional District, where even the bluebirds are scarlet, I was listening to a local talk-radio show when a regular called in to complain, for the millionth time, about the Clintons. Hillary had recently said something objectionable -- I forget what, specifically, since everything she said was objectionable to the show's regulars -- so the caller was calling to ask, in these exact memorable words: "How stupid does she think we is?"
Quite obviously the schoolteaching Floridian thinks we is plenty stupid, although the Times was content to play along at least a little, gently permitting the gatherers to self-identify as a mixed-bag collection of "Republicans, libertarians, independents and former Democrats." Very former, I should think.
The Post was somewhat more direct in its coverage. The protesters, reported the paper, were partisan "conservatives," the most damning proof of which came when they exploded in "loud cheers" upon various speakers' twin "invocations of God and former president Ronald Reagan." One is surprised that the speakers distinguished the two; perhaps that's progress.
The paper continued: "The demonstrators are part of a loose-knit movement that is galvanizing anti-Obama sentiment across the country, stoking a populist dimension to the Republican Party, which has struggled to find its voice since the 2008 elections."
Has struggled, is struggling, and will mightily persist in struggling, if the clowns gathered in Washington over the weekend are any defining indication of the party's utter dishevelment and self-inflicted decline. As they roamed the capital's ground like a demonically possessed herd, holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler, radical right-wing Senator Jim DeMint told the Times that "This is not some kind of radical right-wing group."
Yep. Just call them "the base." Which is what they'll soon be if the GOP -- what's left of it -- fails to get a grip and sternly disassociate itself from these faces of the party's bleakest of futures. There were glimmers of such a recognition Saturday: Only DeMint and "a few Republican legislators" were on hand "for the demonstration," reported the Times, which added that "Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians."
Still, that's not the half of it, and those shy Republican officials knew it. The more their party is defined by tea-partying, town-hall disrupting, manifestly far-right-wing freaks and freak shows, the more their party will narrowly funnel into virtual oblivion, ultimately joining the ranks of the Prohibitionists and Sabbatarians.
Gallup's latest ideological tracking of the American electorate breaks down thus: 40 percent conservative, 35 percent moderate, and 21 percent liberal. Drilling a bit farther, Gallup amassed these self-identifications: nine percent very conservative, 31 percent conservative, 35 percent moderate, 16 percent liberal, and five percent very liberal. It doesn't take a statistical whiz kid to see where America's overall political temperament lies: in that vast, oceanic middle -- neither left nor right, although tilted a trifle center-right.
That's Obama's hurdle and why, of course, he so often ran the ball down the middle in the general election. It's also why his first term will likely remain hewed to the middle; he'd kinda like to be reelected -- that's the unalterable nature of any beastly politico. A middle course isn't my preference; indeed, it's not Obama's, either. But things are what they are, and one should never confuse celestial aspirations with political realities on the ground.
Those same political realities, as statistically reflected above, may also be taking their toll on the Republican leadership. Something MSNBC's Chuck Todd mentioned on yesterday's "Meet the Press" was strikingly noteworthy: GOP pols have just recently begun emphasizing that they're in 80 percent agreement with Obama on health-care reform. In short, they're toying with jettisoning -- albeit rather timidly, for now -- their accelerating image as the party of vehement "No."
That image is dandy for that nine "very conservative" percent out there, some of whom turned out for Saturday's freak show. But it won't win national elections. It will, therefore, be fascinating to watch and see how much farther -- if at all -- Republican pols distance themselves from the freaks.
I love seeing their party go down.
As you say: "Yep. Just call them "the base." Which is what they'll soon be if the GOP -- what's left of it -- fails to get a grip and sternly disassociate itself from these faces of the party's bleakest of futures." Good. I think many Republican politicians actually approve of this nonsense. Much of their politicians' silence screams complicity. I don't want to see them rise ever again. They brought so much misery upon our nation, they can just shut up and see what their values brought. They have no soul and no humanity. They are a waste of time. The sooner they implode the better.
You're Correct - In Theory, Kevin...
...but in actual practice, such a move by the far right as you propose would require that their brains begin to think about something substantial and fact-based. Far right-wingers can be demonstrated as being incapable of such mental activity. For instance, had George W bush announced that all those who have since become Tea Baggers, Birthers, and Deathers represented a threat to the security of the nation and needed to be rounded up and incarcerated, they would have peacefully lined up at the doors of the prisons on their own volition. Try to understand that based on your own relatively rational thought processes!
Ergo, any synthesis of the far right and far left as you suggest is not likely to happen during the lifetime of this universe. It would disrupt the space-time continuum, and destroy all life in the cosmos as we understand it.
For those interested in the justification for my right-wing self-imprisonment assertion, read
The Authoritarians
by Bob Altemeyer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Bob Altemeyer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada
Copyright
just as I suspected -
and as PM and all of us should know - that Gallup poll upon which he bases his conclusions is meaningless. It asks for self-identification rather than one's stance on the various issues. As previous polls have demonstrated, on that the populace is decidedly liberal. In other words, once again PM has rested his argument on an excuse for Obama, not a justification.
Why Liberals Refuse To Accept Their Minority Status. . .
Daphne's comment that "the populace is decidedly liberal" when asked for their stances on issues, rather than their self-identification, only betrays a stubborn, bullheaded refusal on the part of many progressives to face up to the fact that they are a minority of the U.S. populace.
It also, if there was a true demographic breakdown, reveals which age group is the most liberal: Young people under 30.
I cannot recall who said this, but there is a oft-quoted statement that, "If you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart. if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brains." I've often added to that statement, "And if you're not a moderate by the time you're 60, you have no soul." I'm less than four years away from hitting birthday No. 60. I'm nowhere near as far to the left as I was when I was in my 20s, but I'm even farther away from the right.
There is no greater teacher than experience. Having and raising children has long been considered by demographers to be "the great conservatizer." Only when the kids have grown up and struck out on their own do many liberals-turned-conservatives start to mellow out and become moderates -- unless they are insecure about the future, then they tend to harden their attitudes.
It's no accident the the most liberal of Americans are young, unmarried and childless. With few, if any attachments, combined with youthful energy, they can afford to devote the time to take on the world. Not so with older Americans who have mortgages to pay and families to support. I've never had kids, so I never really became a conservative.
And those Americans now in their golden years are much more philosophical than we give them credit for. It's too bad we live in a society that frowns upon respecting the wisdom of our elders.
Exactly...
These morons would be epiphenomenal were it not for the corporate media that magnifies their significance; and the Democratic leadership that exagerates the influence and abilities of their opponents in order to sheild their obessience to the same corporate masters who run the Republicans.
A few firmly stated arguments for progressive positons - arguments we and Obama all know quite well - spoken by our very charismatic president to his countypeople would demolish the teabaggers, and their demographic would shrink to the scattering of village idiots that has always been a minor component of our country's character. For some reason Obama chooses not to utilize simple honesty and common sense to wake our nation up to its own best interest.
The problem with voting Republican.
For those not included in the 31% conservative and 9% very conservative, if they have a reasonable, moderate Republican candidate and get him/her elected, the 9% crowd wins. For this reason I haven't voted for a Republican candidate in almost 30 years. I don't want legislation controlled by the 9% crowd.
Saturday's marchers ARE RIGHT, but for all the wrong reasons!
If the far right were to gain back their sanity and if the far left progressives were to become as angry and active as the right, then their merger would become an indefeatable force in Washington.
What needs to happen is for the polarizations to end. Forget about the wedge issues of abortion, God, guns and gays. Also, forget about Democratic vs Republican and liberal/progressive vs conservative. None of that matters anymore because both political parties are now owned by big business.
The only thing that matters is for WE THE PEOPLE to come together so we can fight the upper 1% plutocracy and their multinational corporations and win back control of our government.
Just remember it's all about the money. Right now, who gives it is WE THE PEOPLE and who gets it is big business. If WE THE PEOPLE can come together in general consensus, we can effect a second democratic revolution in America that would be heard around the world without firing a single shot!
checks & balances
i've been reading ARE WE ROME? one of the interesting points made is that our frustrating and inefficient system of CHECK AND BALANCES is of ROMAN origin.
most of the men involved in writing our constitution looked to ROME as a model, and Cs & Bs was intentionally place in the costitution to curve the power of any one segment of the populus.
FRANKLIN's famous quip about becoming A REPUBLIC, IF WE CAN KEEP IT was read at the time as his displeasure with borrowing such a system from a REPUBLIC that eventually failed and turned itself into an EMPIRE.
Clueless
How else can you describe mental midgets who consistently vote against their own best interests, and parrot the words of cannibals who don't care one whit about their welfare?
People from other parts of the world describe us as ignorant and politically naive.
What an understatement.
The 'Government is the problem' schtick
But that is not the practice
WE THE PEOPLE are the supreme sovereignty in the U.S. but we are not the federal, state or local government. The government just represents us and works for us, or at least that is the law.
But in practice, the government has all the power and does what it wants, or rather what the upper 1% plutocracy and their multinational corporations want, the people be damned. This needs to be reversed, if only WE THE PEOPLE would stop being "wee the sheeple."
Remember that the next time you hear anyone accuse Democrats, Congress or Obama of not having the balls to enact legislation that does not benefit the corporatocracy. It is WE THE PEOPLE who need to "grow a set" and put our mutinous, treasonous government back in it's rightful place, which is being subservient to us.
If this country needs the help of psychiatrists, it's to show us how to not be such flaming cowards and how to take responsibility in micromanaging our representatives in our government. For true democracy to exist, it must be participatory.
The Center-Right meme
P.M.--I don't suppose it's possible for you to write an article without reminding us moderately conservative the country is. But for one thing, this poll comes on the heels of conservatives effectively demonizing the word "liberal" over a period of decades; second, these are pretty much meaningless labels and I'm doubtful most people--considering the trajectory of education in this country--even know what they mean; thirdly, according to most reputable polls the majority of the public agrees with the democratic stance on almost any issue you can name; and fourth, your characterization of Obama as being hamstrung by the political realities of the "conservative electorate" doesn't hold water.
Obama ran as a much more liberal candidate than he has actually governed and still got elected, and at any rate, it's not his job to be held hostage by the electorate (to you an inevitable reality), but to instead use his considerable rhetorical skills to move this mythical center you speak of to the left (if that's what he really wants to do). All great presidents are able to move the "great center" to their way of thinking. If he can't do it, he's either not a great president or he doesn't want to move the center, in which case he's controlled by corporate interests (isn't it bloody obvious by now).
In really growing weary of you weaving this "center-right/Obama helpless" meme into practically every column you write, even one notably criticizing republicans.
correct again pgbowden
The "center right USA" is a myth. On every major issue majority opinion supports the left of center position. The reason 40% of americans consider themselves conservative, is they have been taught for decades by right wing propaganda, and madison avenue type marketing, that being a liberal is akin to being a pedophile or worse. Your editorials only aid in the reinforcing of this BS. Start looking at the polling and debunking this wingnut crap, instead of bolstering it.
Who are you kidding with
Who are you kidding with "Obama ran as a much more liberal candidate than he has actually governed"? What in the world kind of claim is that? For instance, the healthcare plan he spoke about the other night was the one he ran on! Heck, the mandate to buy insurance was one of the Clinton's main arguments against Obama. How many times does the man have to repeat himself? The escalation of military operations in Afghanistan comes on the heels of a campaign in which Obama said he would escalate military operations in Afghanistan. Were your ears filled with wax so that you didn't hear that?
The real kicker was Glenn Greenwald giving Obama a big failing mark for claiming the power to keep Guantanamo inmates, shortly after Greenwald had praised Obama for setting up a year to develop a plan for closing Guantanamo -- the former policy is a necessary part of the latter! What did Greenwald want, that Obama should hold inmates for more than a year while denying the power to hold those inmates? Maybe Obama is just that much smarter than his critic, in this instance.
Obama has followed quite closely in office those things he campaigned on, but so many of the people who voted for him seem to have voted for a fantasy Obama whose exploits are being dramatized by DC Comics.
I am a far leftist myself, so don't necessarily favor Obama's policies, but I've got problems with voters as well. I am reluctant to hold back from saying that a lot of people who are unhappy with Obama have been irresponsible, self-deceiving citizens who voted for a comic book rather than a person. At least when I was sealed in the voting cubicle I voted for the person. And a comic book is no argument against PM's assertions.
The "Middle"
The problem with polls, such as the Gallop poll, is that the terms, liberal, conservative and moderate, are relative terms and not absolute terms. This type of poll will always approximate a "bell curve", sometimes skewing left or right. What is more important is how people define "liberal" and "conservative". For example, one might currently have the same Gallup poll results, but with liberals supporting a single-payer system and moderates supporting a public option.
The real (small "p") political problem for self-described true conservatives is that they have publicly and loudly lost faith in the American Dream. Their unifying principle is that American democratic government is a failure that has morphed into an inherent evil. As Ronald Ray-gun said, "Government is the problem". Worse for the so-called conservatives is that their prima facie evidence of their princinciple is that the (insert either "n***ers", "Mexicans", "gays", etc., here) are running everything. Worse yet, the conservatives assert that these groups are being enabled by intellectuals and scientists (also known as smart people).
That is a hell of a world view to sell to young Americans and to non-white Americans, educated Americans and socially liberal Americans. More importantly the unifying principle is a hard sell in the long term. It was one thing to sell the idea of "liberal government" being the problem in the 70s, 80sand 90s which the way everyone heard and interpreted Ronald Ray-gun. It is quite another to sell the idea that we are heirs to an inherently evil form of government. No "bright shining city on a hill" there.
What is driving many of my progressive bretheren nuts is that this small and shrinking minority continues to hold enough political in in one-half of one-third of our federal government to delay 20% of the the progress on one issue. It drives me nuts, too.
Using the single issue of healthcare as a template, we progressives (and yes that includes P.M.) must decide "what's next?". What's next is moving the center to the Left. The left should become single-payer, and the middle should become the public option. Doing nothing should become Left Behind. Once we make that shift, we must make single-payer the middle and what kind of single-payer the Left and the Right.
Accomplishing this will take a lot of organizing, a lot of man-hours and a lot of money. Screaming at Oboma and P.M. will not get us through that process, but it is a lot easier.
PM, you got it right...
PM, you got it right, AGAIN
i commend you for your persistance in bringing to our attention the realities on the ground, not on the celestial field.
Tea baggers party
It should be noted that the size of the crowd is estimated at about 65,000.
The Gay rights march a few months back was over 500,000.
The million Man march years back was over 400,000.
The antiwar marchs against the Iraq war all numbered in the hundreds of thousands,the one in January of 2007 was estimated at 400,000.
Kind of puts it in perspective.
numbers dont count
except the number of hours the media spends covering protests. The teabagger nutjobs got hours of blanket coverage all weekend and all through the "town meeting" circus. Remember how much all the other demonstrations you named above got? I cant either, because it was less than 5 minutes.
...and at a peace-march in
...and at a peace-march in Washington in Sept 2006 we were estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 strong - and got total of 24 seconds of coverage on ABC that weekend - nothing afterwards. Other networks blew us off in a similar fashion.
The teabaggers a couple months back (something like 50,000 idiots nationwide) got 2 weeks of wall-to-wall coverage. The corporate networks need to be demolished, or we will never have a real stake in a democracy.
I am constantly amazed at the short-sightedness
of these supposedly intelligent fools...what do they think we should have, if not a government, "of the people" (or any quasi government-type services)..a free for all..? Are they advocating for a "no holds barred, uncivilzed, bloody, no law, survival of the fittest" type of Nation...? Isn't that why we formed a government, in the first place....(remember...? it's in all the history books, the Declaration of Independence and the struggle to throw off British (tea) Corporate rule..and now you want to take our government away and give it back the Corporations..are you completely insane? ... We won't pay taxes (not to the government, any way!)..and we won't have police protection, no military to protect us, no fire department, no public schools, no public roads, bridges or parks, no social services of any kind.... (private Corporation services, credit card or cash payments required first) no quasi-government of any kind...no protection, from foriegn invaders, poisoned water, poisoned air and pollution, no representation in Washington D.C.(the Corporations are winning that war too..) no protection for workers...(work 'til you drop dead, no whinning!) no protections from big banks, bigger corporations, price gouging?....WTF!!..