The Republican Plan for Relevance: How 20% can be 50.1%

Its been an interesting few weeks for Mitt Romney. The conventional wisdom was that, after a bruising primary that saw him realign his policies with the extreme Right of his party, the Republican nominee would now, somewhat clumsily, try and bring himself back back into the 'Center.' This was even the stated plan released by the Romney Campaign (remember the etch-a-sketch comment). After all, now he has to prove he wants to be the President of all Americans, not just the hardline conservatives, right?  In order to win a majority of votes, he needs to appeal to a majority of citizens, right? That's what everyone seemed to expect, but this is not what he's done. His policy speech on education embraced higher class sizes and tuition and he has sought to align himself firmly with Donald Trump's Birtherism. When confronted about this yesterday, Romney reminded a reporter that he didn't need to win every American's vote, only 50.1% of American's votes. In actual fact, that percentage that Romney needs is much smaller and it is, according to Republican strategy, in his interests for that percentage to be low.  To try and explain why this might be, I want to look at two phenomena in the modern Republican Party.

First of all, while they may not have come out and put it directly in their platform, it has basically been stated Republican policy for the past few years to try to drive down the percentage of the population that votes. This has led both to legislating against specific groups who are statistically less likely to vote for them (through the use of the poll-tax inspired voter ID laws) and to more general efforts to lower the number of voters (closing polling stations, getting rid of same-day registration, etc). Part in parcel with this is the push to make government seem like a negative entity detracting good (or should that be goods) from society rather than a positive entity of enlightened democratic empowerment. Because Conservatives believe it is in their interests to show government as ineffectual, if they cannot get exactly what they want it is in their interests to do nothing. We all have friends and some of you reading this may even be people who say they won't vote because they think that it doesn't matter, that governments just are the way they are. No matter how much truth there may be in that statement in a specific instance (my vote in New York for Obama will mean relatively little) that view is inherently flawed. Besides, there are very few ballots where there is not one close election to vote for. They may not get the media coverage of national campaigns, but Republicans have shown how much damage they can do with state and local control. Voting always matters, even just to remind ourselves that we live in a Democracy where the government is supposed to serve us, not the other way around. Voting is not enough, but it is a vital part of Democratic society.

The other half of this is the dramatic push to the Right that Republicans have made in the past half decade alone. As Rachel Maddow points out in her new book, the country has 'Drift'ed to the Right quite steadily since the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, but since the rise of the 'grass routes' (see 1% backed) Tea Party movement and the Citizen's United decision, the Republican party has turned that steady drift into a tidal wave. Republicans are preaching, pushing, and legislating Pre-Civil Rights movement voting laws, pre-Rowe v. Wade women's rights laws, pre-Progressive era labor and tax laws, and a pre-Great Society social compact at rates never before seen.

Neither of these is a great revelation, but what I think is not discussed enough in our media, even in the leftist blogosphere, is how these two facts about how the Republican Party has been acting are two sides of the same coin. They are not just different despicable things about the Republican party, they are the Republican Party's strategic plan to stay relevant in the 21st Century.

The Tea Party movement wasn't some insurgency of radicalism as much as it was the true base of the Republican Party asserting themselves. This is who the Republican Party is. They are predominately white, predominately Evangelical Christian, predominantly NRA members or supporters, and predominantly male (Sarah Palin and her Mamma Grizzlies aside... even Fox lets women on sometimes).  And they believe they are 'losing' the country. And they have a point (that is, if we cede them the point that they ever had it in the first place... which is very very debatable). A plurality, perhaps a majority already, of Americans support gay marriage. A clear majority of Americans support ending subsidies to big businesses, raising taxes on the wealthy, and protecting a woman's right to choose what goes on with her body. Only twenty six percent of Americans define themselves as Evangelical. Although we have 90 registered guns for every 100 Americans, only 30 percent of Americans own a gun (yeah, think about that). Because of immigration, Texas with its 34 electoral votes (that's second highest in the nation) may swing to a Democrat in 2020. And a few weeks ago was the first day where more non-white babies were born in America than white. The average American does not align themselves with the values of the Extreme Right.

The Republicans should be running scared. If our political parties represented the changing beliefs of the American populous both parties would be sprinting to the left, particularly on social issues. And yet, rather than try and position themselves in the mold of David Cameron ('I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative') or even George W. Bush's failed attempt at 'Compassionate Conservatism' (too many syllables for W), the Republicans have been pushing policies far more in line with the Far Right Parties in Europe: Perussuomalaiset in Finland, The Alliance for the Future of Austria, The Northern League in Italy and, of course, Marie Le Pen's Front National in France. These are predominantly pro-business, anti-tax, anti-immigrant, pro-white male parties. But while some of them have gained popularity recently in their respective countries, they are, for the most part, quite clearly second tier parties. What makes Republicans feel this is a good electoral strategy?

The way that the Left in this country has explained this is mostly by pointing out that the American Corporate Media is obsessed with the idea of giving two sides of the story, regardless of the merits of those sides. The rigidness of the two party system gives them an easy structure in which to craft their 'news.' The gospel of 'compromise' has totally overwhelmed any idea of given societal values. And... the corporate media is making a bucketload of money, which makes it much easier to just not want to rock the boat (particularly since that seems to be the standard they set for their journalism as well). This is clearly part of it. But its not the long term plan. It can't be. Demographic statistics would seem to prove that an extremist Republican Party will become increasingly marginalized over the next decade and our politics is run by statisticians.

But those statistics only work if those same demographic statistics are reflected in who votes. And Republicans are banking on that not being the case. Republicans are relying on their base to vote at a much higher percentage than the rest of the population. Do they just think that their constituents are smarter and will see past the 'don't vote, its useless' charade? No, of course not.

They are relying on two other things. The first is that they will be able to outspend their opponents in any election be it for President or Town Dogcatcher. The Citizen's United decision made it possible for any campaign in the country to spend millions of dollars simply because of the whim of a particular millionaire, most of whom are, of course, conservative. And of course it also helps if you disband or weaken Unions, some of the largest donors to Progressive candidates. The adds run by the candidates and Super PACS are not centrist adds to appeal to a broader audience, they're reminders to that core voting block that, if they don't vote Republican, America will soon be part of the Kenyan Socialist Empire. That, regardless of the actual policies of the opposition candidate, he or she will work night and day to take away your guns, make your sons gay, and outlaw Christmas. And, early signs would show that its working. The advantage in polling that Scott Walker has in Wisconsin right now can be attributed to the fact that over 90% of registered Republicans are planning on voting in the recall election. Can you think of any election in America where 90% of the population voted?

The second reason Republicans believe their base will continue to vote in droves is because they have the strongest get-out-the-vote organization in the country. No, not Fox News. The Church. All across the heartland of America, radical Evangelical and Catholic preachers curse Obama with the same hellfire as Satan. They remind their constituents that they are America's (and thus, Jesus') last defense against the hordes of atheists, sodomites, and feminists that have declared war on their way of life. Supposedly mainstream Republicans court the endorsement of preachers calling for anything from putting all homosexuals in a gigantic pen so that they all die off to murdering abortion providers to burning non-Christian scriptures. I am not suggesting that most churches are like this. A plurality of American religious institutions preach tolerance and love, but they try to present themselves, on the whole, as apolitical. But the Churches that the vast majority of the Republican base attends are like this. They are there, as with the Super-PAC ads, not to convert but to remind. And, of course, it also helps if you disband or weaken Unions, arguably some of the most important collective Progressive get-out-the-vote organizations.

This is the Republican electoral plan for the future: to pander both legislatively (on the local, state, and national level) and rhetorically to the extreme right while working to lower the percentage of Americans who vote through coercion or direct disenfranchisement. To make the Extreme Right, who maybe make up 17%-20% of the over all population, a majority voting block at least on the state and local level. This is why Mitt Romney is willing to remain so firmly entrenched in the hardline Right that it may cost him the election. This is their long-game, their plan on how to remain the Dominant party in American politics while pushing fringe policies. We can't let that happen.

The Republican Plan for Education and Society

As a follow-up to the post yesterday, I wanted to pass along this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show about what Romney's big bold plans are for America's schools. Its part of a larger segment on what a terrible candidate Mitt Romney is, but, like many of her more bold assumption, the real point is in the details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwiRE8vgRrc

The basic ideas are:


1. Bigger Class Sizes in Grade School: Mysterious unnamed studies report that in countries where class sizes are bigger, test scores are similar to countries where classes are smaller. Also because then you can have fewer teachers :).

2. Just Shop Around: Romney admits that it would make him 'really popular' if he were to just 'give' government grants to Americans who want to go to college. (I don't think it would work quite like that anyway). But no, he will forgo the pump in popularity so that money can go towards tax breaks for corporations and subsidies to the oil and gas industry. For you people who want to go to college 'shop around' he says. If you aren't wealthy, some schools just aren't for you. But don't worry, in Romney's America there is one simple way to go to college with at least partial government backing. Join the Army.



These are not new ideas. These are old ideas. He doesn't want his children or grandchildren to be in schools with larger classes sizes. And he doesn't have to... because he can afford not to. For you 'poor' people out there (who can't afford the average $19,906 cost of private high school... or bump that up to $40,875 for the average private boarding school) you should just be thankful for having school at all... and if you're really industrious and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, well bucko, you'll make it. At least until you have to do your compulso...voluntary military service. That is if you do want to go to college.

Newt Gingrich recently gave a speech where his basic point was that government healthcare would not just hurt the rich because they might have to wait in line like the rest of us... it would also hurt the poor. His idea was that having differentiated services for different groups of people would speed up the process for everybody. That logic works... as long as you don't think too much, because what's obviously implicit in that point is that it would be easier if the standards of medical care for the poor didn't have to be as high. Wouldn't it just be easier if we could have really fantastic clean hospitals only for people who could afford them (and thus the government would never need to give money to them), and for all the people who can't afford them... there could just be drop in clinics. Some people might even be willing to seek the consultation of someone with a little less training... for a lower price. I hear witchdoctors are really making a comeback. Or they can go where the poor and sick really belong... to the arms of the Church.


I am fairly confident this is not even what the average Republican voter wants... but it is the direction their party is moving in. The Barak Obama Presidency has been full of disappointments, but the damage that a Romney Presidency would cause to our Democracy is unimaginable. I don't think Obama is going to lose, but we cannot think of it as a forgone conclusion. And its not enough to just send Obama back, we must send him back with as much of a Progressive mandate as possible. Find a State or Local election. Find a candidate you like... and donate your time, money, anything you can to get that candidate elected in the fall. Elections aren't going to solve all of our problems... but we cannot forget just how much they mean.

American Higher Education: A Symptom of the Disease

I'm breaking my self imposed silence for a quick post. I was going to just post this on facebook (inc) but wanted to write a little bit more and thought I would share it here.



http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/extra-charles-ferguson-on-how-harvard-and-other-universities-collude-with-the-financial-industry/


On Eliot Spitzer's Current TV show, Charles Ferguson lays out a terrifically important point, saying how American Universities, which (Santorum's right) should be a bedrock of Progressivism, have been hijacked by the radical pro-1% 'center.' Professors have been cut off at the knees by the internal attack of cultural relativism and the external control of Administrators who can't see beyond the University's bottom line. It is morally reprehensible, not to mention unpatriotic, to view the education of the next generation as a business venture. It is just as morally reprehensible to view the army, the postal service, public transit, public scientific spending, or medical care as a business venture. By that I do not mean that they should operate without fiscal constraint. Most people would not consider their family a business venture, but that doesn't mean that they go and buy a house every week. The bottom line for a business (and this is the point that, if he's going to veer to the left, Obama will,and has started to, campaign on) is: did you make a profit. Yes, for some businesses the welfare of their workers is very important but that's an added bonus, its not what being a 'successful' business is about. Businesses that
use union busting policies in America and child or slave labour abroad aren't doing bad things because they're all run by evil people... they're doing bad things because it improves their bottom line. We have, as a society, decided that its best for businesses like these to exist. We can have the discussion about the merits of that later, but even given that its good for these semi-amoral businesses to exist... that's a far cry from saying they're the model for every form of collective organization.  The co-opting of the Presidency of Harvard is, in the end, a relatively minor problem when looking back at the past 30 years, but that does not mean it is meaningless. It is vitally important that we realize decisions like Citizen's United or the policies that Romney exercised at Bain (and countless other executives do every day) are symptoms of an endemic disease of radical pro-1% policies and must be treated like that rather than as the disease itself.


And the charge of 'its always been this way' simply isn't true. This is how it was under the rule of Kings and Despots, when you only had to learn as much as your pre-allotted job would require, where some murder with impunity while others are murdered for stealing a slice of bread, where you worked without the promise of adequate (or any) compensation. That is not the way Democracies are supposed to work. The path of Democracy has not been how to change that system into something slightly more agreeable but to how to move away from that kind of system all together. It has been a bumpy, slow, and still unfinished journey to get there, but that has been the direction this country and the majority if not all Democracies have taken. Not to say that the other opinion has not been voiced. The cry to return to something 'easier' and more 'orderly' where people take their lot in life rather than aspiring for something more has remained part of the conversation. But, apart from a few outliers, a few proto-nationalists, the 1880s in America, its been an option which has, been fought against by the people who we now recognize on being on the 'right' side of history. (For all you cultural relativists out there, FDR and De Gaul = Right Hitler and Franco = Wrong) That is until the past 30 years. From Thatcher and Reagan to W. to Merkel to Norquist this has been the unabashed policy of the Right in Democracies worldwide. And, under the guise centrism and the bribes of big business, its been a policy that has, on the whole, spread as easily through many supposedly leftist parties as it has permeated the rest of society. The Occupy / 99% movement is a beginning to one of the most important tasks that facing the world: pointing out that the current state of affairs is not just abominable. It is an aberration. The first step to purging it from our polity is to point it out. Everywhere we see it. So, great thanks to Charles Ferguson for pointing this out. I haven't had a chance to watch Inside Job yet, but I certainly mean to, especially now.

Beyond that. I think you should all check out Spitzer's show (and not just because I have a thing for forgiving sex scandals). You can get clips on Itunes for free if you can't watch on Current TV. The style of the show is a bit Law and Order for me, but Spitzer's a smart guy, he can get fantastic guests, and I'm fairly certain he thinks that this might just be the best way to kickstart his re-entry into Public Service. And, with an increasingly internet-driven electorate and (especially in New York) a core of Progressive news/podcast nuts (myself among them), he might just be right.

To Make the Obvious Official

Obviously I've been taking a momentary break from blogging here. Developments in my non-blog life and moving apartments has taken up much of my time recently, but I hope to get a few posts out over the next month or so and then restart full time, either here or on a re-lauched website, some time in mid July.

Anders Behring Breivik and Insanity

On Tuesday, we heard slightly surprising news out of Norway. Anders Behring Breivik, the conservative Eurocentric terrorist who killed 77 people this past summer, was found sane enough to stand criminal trial. This is a dramatic reversal of the original decision declaring him psychotic, absolving him and his society from some of the blame of this heinous act. After all, it's much easier to declare that these kind of actions can only result from a deranged mind. Yes, we are a violent species, but we have moved beyond that kind of barbarism-especially in the West. This is the lie that those who want to maintain the status quo feed us. They have created a linguistic system by which we label everything which appears to be outside of the Dominant culture/counterculture duality as socially, if not scientifically, insane.

Breivik is a perfect example of how part of this works. Rather than trying to explain how or why our people like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, or Anders Behring Breivik, exist in our-or any other-culture, we dismiss them as being insane, evil, and/or heretical. We have seen the results of closing our eyes jamming our fingers in our ears and attending our society has "evolved" beyond that. It is certainly true that human society has, in many ways drastically progressed in the past 200 years. However without knowledge of the past and an understanding of what it means for us today, we will find ourselves as part of a regressive society. The idea of declaring someone or something insane has far more insidious repercussions than the blunt example of Anders Behring Breivik. As acceptable behavior becomes more severely codified (not only in terms of one set of acceptable behaviors, but also a different more restrictive subsets), more becomes deemed as unacceptable.

I do not mean to suggest that this is a unique phenomenon, rather it is a basic definition of how collectivized societal power works. Some measure of this is necessary for basic human interaction. For example we could not communicate effectively if we had personal definitions for every word. However, the branding of nonconformist or dominant thought as insane must be thought of as regressive. It is simply a scientifically-charged way of calling someone a witch or a heretic. That is when they don't just call you a witch or a heretic. We can see this in the way that people in the LGBTQ community are treated, the way that Feminists are treated, the way the Wicca are treated, and certainly the way that Progressives are treated (these are three of many groups I could name). Look at the way that Progressive ideas like having a more equitable tax system, ending oil subsidies, ending or at least changing the tactics used in the 'War on Drugs,' or free public college are treated. No matter how popular these policies may be, as shown through polling, their ideas that do not fit in with how we are told that our society is run. So they are dismissed as impossible, as insane.

Once again this is not a new phenomenon. Other 'insane' ideas from our history are that women are not just property. That, really, when it comes down to it, no person should be any other person's property. Or the insane idea that everybody should be taught to read or write. The key point in understanding this is not that the Dominant forces in society are using a new tactic, it's that they're using the same one. No matter how many times we are told that we do, we do not live in post-racial, post-sexist, politically correct 'end of history' world. The Dominant forces in our society, the corporatists, the one-percenters are counting on the rest of us to be satisfied enough with the status quo and scared enough of being branded as 'insane' that we will accept the wool which is being pulled haphazardly over our eyes. We have to prove to them and to ourselves that we aren't. That this is still a world which needs new ideas and transformative policies.

Which brings us back to Anders Behring Breivik. Norwegian society, and European society on the whole, was rocked by his violent actions. The original decision to declare him insane seemed designed to be sedative, calming a terrified populace than anything else. "Don't worry," that decision said to Europeans, "he was just an outlier, a random force in our standardized society." Just one look at European society shows this not be the case. While Breivik certainly went a step further than some of his compatriots, his bigoted beliefs are far from uncommon across the entire European Union. All of those people are not criminally insane, regardless of how distasteful their particular beliefs might be on, say, race relations. Before we can have a conversation about the direction our societies and our species is going in, we must recognize the existence of multiplicities of thought. We must insist that there is not a black-and-white choice here, that insisted upon this does not lead to the trap of cultural relativism. I have no problem condemning Breivik’ s way of thinking, but that doesn't mean that I can simply dismiss the conclusions he draws or factors that caused him to believe those things. The only way for society to progress as a whole is for us to look honestly at the component parts which our species contains. The court's decision to declare Breivik sane, and thus fit to stand criminal trial for his actions, is a small step in the right direction.